The offprint you are holding in your hands comes from an expanded issue of the weekly Executive Intelligence Review, which rushed this special report on “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor,” into print on an unusually short timetable to be published for a cover-date of Oct. 28, 1994.

What you are about to read is the result of a team effort of EIR’s internationally and nationally based intelligence staff under the direction of Founding Editor Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. The team of researchers on three continents who assisted in preparing material for the articles, charts, and maps in this Special Report includes: JosephBrewda, Mark Burdman, Carlos CotaMeza, Linda de Hoyos, Allen Douglas, William Engdahl, Manuel Hidalgo, Ken Kronberg, Hugo Lopez Ochoa, Rogelio Maduro, Marcia Merry, Silvia Palacios, Ana Maria Phau, David Ramonet, Raynald Rouleau, Michael Sharp, John Sigerson, Dennis Small, Gretchen Small, Jeffrey Steinberg, Geraldo Teran, Scott Thompson, Charles Tuttle, and Anthony Wikrent. Other collaborators contributed information from Asia, Africa, and Ibero-America. The project editor was Susan Welsh.

The timing was chosen to maximize the impact on the Nov. 8, 1994, midterm elections in the United States. Both the American electorate, and responsible citizens and policy making elites around the world, must base their political choices on the primary fact which LaRouche underlines in his concluding article: that the breaking economic and financial crises now gripping the entirety of this planet reflect the close of an approximately 500-year cycle in European history.

The fall of the Berlin Wall five years ago in October 1989, was but the first fissure in an edifice of oligarchical control which shaped the 20th century as an era of holocaust, genocide, and war. President Clinton’s break with the U.S “special relationship” with Britain, announced during his visit to continental Europe in July 1994, marks an inflection point for a potentially new foreign policy.

We contend that the case presented in these pages is irrefutable. We also believe that this report makes it clear that no serious intellectual, political or religious leader, or economic decision-maker can afford to be without the uniquely authoritative, and effectively presented , intelligence picture of the weekly EIR.

Acknowledgement

Crucial background research for this Special Report was provided by Irish filmmaker Kevin Dowling. Dowling researched and produced “The Elephant Man” in 1989, a film which exposed the global empire of Hongkong’s most notorious ivory dealer, T.H. Poon. The film was “pivotal,” said the WWF’s Sadruddin Aga Khan, in campaigns to save the elephant. WWF Director General Charles de Haes called it ”a model of conservation journalism.”

However, while making that film, Dowling unearthed some of the sordid reality of what the WWF was really doing, leading to his next film, “Tenpence in the Panda,” an explosive expose of the WWF. In a campaign called “unprecedented” in the history of Britain’s Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA), the WWF spent a reported $350,000, and exerted enormous political muscle on the IB A, in an attempt to kill or censor the film. An enraged Prince Philip falsely accused Dowling of stealing his top-secret memos, which demonstrated Philip’s attempts to cover up an internal WWF audit, the Phillipson Report. Parts of that suppressed report, which was devastatingly critical of WWF policies and programs, are excerpted here for the first time anywhere.

Despite the pressure, “Tenpence in the Panda” aired on the widely watched British TV investigative series “The Cook Report,” in July 1990. Dowling is currently writing what he describes as “a sensational new history of the conservation industry.”

“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.” – Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh 1

During the recent five years, approximately, the British press and book-publishing businesses have been occupied by an increasing intensity of scandals directed against the Royal Family, the House of Windsor.

The most recent of these appeals to the prurient interest of the gossiping public, former cavalry officer James Hewitt’s contributions to the authorship of Princess in Love,2 has carried this mounting scandal above the threshold of certain influential Britons’ reluctance to speak out.

1. As reported by Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August 1988. Compare this statement with the Prince’s 1986 Foreword to If I Were An Animal:

“I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist. .. . I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.”

Compare the opinion of that really high-minded Prince with the words of his intellectual forerunner, Bertrand Russell:

“But bad times, you say, are exceptional, and can be dealt with by exceptional methods. This has been more or less true during the honeymoon period of industrialism, but it will not remain true unless the increase of population of the world is enormously diminished…. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued through each of the world wars. [War] has been disappointing in this respect… but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread through the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full…. The state of affairs may be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”

Exemplary is the statement early this month by Harold Brooks-Baker, the publishing director of Burke’s Peerage:

“We are extremely close to the end of the House of Windsor,” adding that, among Britain’s “educated upper classes,” the view of the House of Windsor has become “negative.”

Brooks-Baker foresaw the likelihood that the Windsors might be ousted by no later than sometime early during the next century.

It is only in low-grade fiction, or in worse precincts, such as today’s major news-media, that an intimate affair with a lady (or, with a man less than a gentleman) is presented as the reason for the toppling of a throne.

In fact, how little concern the general public has for either the incompetence or outrageously perverse behavior of its preferred celebrities, is shown by such disgusting phenomena as the existence of Hollywood stars’ fan clubs, by the Soviet Central Committee’s selection of a man virtually dead to succeed General Secretary Yuri Andropov, or by the all-too-frequent behavior shown by a majority of American voters almost any election night.

The sexual scandals do not topple thrones, or members of the U.S. Congress; however, like assassinations, they are often dredged up, or, like judicial “railroads” of targeted public figures, concocted as pretexts employed in service of dynastic or other purely political motives.

After the facts presented in this Special Report are considered, the British establishment’s strategic, historical motives for dumping the Windsors should become obvious.

This report documents the fact, that for more than thirty years, Prince Philip has personally directed his World Wildlife Fund in genocide against the population of sub-saharan Africa.

For most of us, that Hitler-like behavior would be grounds to convict the monarchy.

However, the relevant strata of the British oligarchy are not like us; they are typified, as an institution, by the common inhumanity otherwise seen among the leading London, Geneva, and Wall Street bankers, financial houses, and the London Economist of today; for reasons to be supplied in the closing section of this report, most such persons probably would not consider genocide directed against darker-complexioned peoples of sub-saharan Africa sufficient grounds for annoying the Royal Family, let alone toppling it.

This report documents also the facts which do affright even the calloused consciences of London oligarchs.

The Windsors continue to spread that same mass-murderous, New Age policy which we witness in the World Wildlife Fund operations against Africans, also into the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Australia. This threatens the imminent downfall of a global civilization already racked by the worst financial instability which Europe has seen since the middle of the 14th Century.

A continuation of the policies of the Windsors, and also of the corruption-soaked former Prime Minister, Baroness Margaret Thatcher,3 under such present financial and economic circumstances, can bring on a planet-wide plunge into chaos, taking the London-led international oligarchy down with the rest of us.

3. A much-publicized, brewing legal action against her son, Mark Thatcher, in Texas courts, has put the former Prime Minister into the London press limelight as a foolishly doting mother who resorted to the highest degree of corruption in office for the purpose of elevating her peculiarly unsuitable son to millionaire status. In addition to this disgusting example of nepotism, Thatcher is vulnerable to the airing of many other unpleasant truths, should their muster be required. The bringing down of Thatcher’s influence, and, therefore, that of her former U.S. toady, George Bush, accords with the same strategic motives prompting a faction of the oligarchy to topple the decadent Royals.

Think of the Windsors as like the bus driver of a vehicle, today’s remains of the British Empire.

Ordinarily, the spectacle of the terrified passengers in a public conveyance being operated by a besotted clown, would merely amuse those sadists ofglobalist financier oligarchy, were they themselves not among the passengers. In that view, one might better understand why, during the past five-odd years, the relevant portions of the British establishment at large have oozed into the opinion that that decadent dynasty, the Windsors, must go.

The charges against the Royals
Ladies and gentlemen of the readership’s international jury, we have brought you to this court to hear charges arising from one of the most monstrous crimes committed in all known human history, a crime perpetrated on a vast scale.

We present to you here the evidence, that for the past thirty-four years, since its founding in 1961, a wicked organization, calling itself by such names as the World Wildlife Fund, has engaged in willful genocide against the nations and peoples of the sub-Sahara regions of East, West, and South Africa.

We shall prove to you, that throughout all of this period, the “kingpin” of this criminal conspiracy has been Prince Philip, also known as the Duke of Edinburgh, and as Consort to the reigning Queen of the United Kingdom.

We show you here, from his own public utterances, that not only has Prince Philip been the titular head of this criminal conspiracy.

You will discover that he has played this role with full consciousness of the criminal intent of his organization’s policies. We show you here, that he has repeatedly stated his desire to bring about the deaths of countless millions of people, to which monstrous crime he has professed to have been driven by the same quality of motive which impelled the Conservative Revolution’s Adolf Hitler:4 to the purpose of drastically reducing certain human populations of this planet.

We show you here the evidence, that he has advocated the policies by means of which this genocide, including that ongoing in Rwanda, has been brought about, In Her Majesty’s Service, through concerted action of the World Wildlife Fund and British Crown.

4. Cf. Armin Mohler, Die Konservative Revolution in Deutschland, 1918-1932 (Darmstadt: 1972). The Nazi Party, like Adolf Hitler a creation of the imperial princedom’sThule Society, was but one variety of a populous species known as the “Conservative Revolution.” This includes a leading Nazi ideologue of the 1933-45 interval, Martin Heidegger, also Friedrich von Hayek of Mont Pelerin Society notoriety, and also many who fit into the ideological category of Universal Fascism-advocate Michael Ledeen’s “neo-conservative” fans of radical “free trade” and socio-economic “chaos theory” today.

We present to you the evidence, that he, by the word of his own hand and mouth, and with shameless braggadocio, has adopted publicly many of those programs which the World Wildlife Fund and its affiliates have deployed to bring about against Africans, and also others, that genocide which was the Prince’s explicit standing instruction and documented intent.

This evidence will show that he is personally responsible for this ongoing and attempted genocide against the peoples of sub-saharan Africa, and, also, of other parts of this planet.

The evidence shows that this Royal Consort is guilty of this crime not only in his own person, but in his capacity as the designated princely “kingpin” of this horrible undertaking.

There are many other culpable parties: the House of Windsor as an institution; many individual accomplices, simply on their own account; officials of governments such as the Major government’s British Overseas Development Minister, Lady Lynda Chalker; wealthy families, in addition to his own; powerful financier and other corporate interests; highly paid officials of well-financed and complicit charitable and other private organizations; and many others: the list reads, as it should, like a summary of the Nuremberg Trials’ categories of criminals under the rubric of crimes against humanity.

To catalog the number and variety of each and all of the accomplices known to us would require many volumes of documentation.

The authors and editors of this Special Report have limited ourselves to presenting sufficient evidence to demonstrate the global enormity of the ongoing crimes being committed by this London-directed cabal, and to bring to the bar of the public conscience’s justice those principal perpetrators and their leading accomplices whose assured complicity in this crime is shown beyond doubt by the evidence at hand.

In the earlier portion, the evidence presented to you will focus upon the manner in which genocide was planned and executed against the nations and populations of sub-saharan Africa. Thereafter, the focus of the evidence is shifted, to bring in facts which show that the Prince and his accomplices have used their genocide in Africa as a model for deploying the same roster of international institutions and policies in presently on-going operations against most of the world’s nations and peoples of this planet.

You will see the evidence of World Wildlife Fund’s key role in the efforts to ravish the sovereign existence of the world’s leading power, the United States of America, and the implicitly treasonous role of the Prince’s co-thinkers and other accomplices, as persons and as organizations, inside the United States.

You will see the impact of these same operations in other parts of the Americas, operations intended to destroy,

Canada

Mexico

Venezuela

Brazil

Peru

Bolivia

Argentina,

…all as part of the same global operation tested in genocide against Africans.

You will see the virtual obliteration of the industrial culture, the national sovereignty, and even the mortal existence of the nation called Australia. You will see exemplary evidence of the same operations being conducted against countries of Asia and continental Europe.

It is readily and fairly calculated, that the policy-measures which the Prince and his accomplices have adopted, and are implementing currently would, if allowed, reduce the population of this planet from a current level of about 5.3 billions persons, to much less than 1 billion within about two generations, chiefly through the hyperbolically self-accelerating impact of famine and epidemic diseases of persons, animals, and plants.

Under conditions produced as a byproduct of such concentrated shock to the collective immune-system of all higher forms of life, it is by no means assured that any human beings would exist at the close of the coming century, if the Prince and his accomplices were not stopped, and the policies reversed, now. We might hope such a holocaust were not certain, but we dare not risk that wish; in any case, the Prince, his accomplices, and their evil policies must be stopped now.

One must not overestimate the morality of those sections of the oligarchy which are working toward the ouster of the Windsors, of the Thatcherites, or both.

From the standpoint of such factions of the oligarchy, the essential crime of the Windsors and the Thatcherites (like the Bush-leaguers in the U.S.A.) is not that the oligarchy has strong objections to the Hitler-like immorality of the Windsors’ genocidal practices, but rather only the Windsors’ manifest fanatical stupidity, their decadence.

No doubt, many of the eugenicists of the oligarchy view this “fanatical stupidity” as the result of something like a flaw in the family’s genes, whether from Philip’s side of the family, or to be found already among Victoria’s brood.

Put summarily, the world seems headed toward Hell in the proverbial wheelbarrow, and the Windsors (and Thatcherites) won’t get off the track of their failed New Age experiments. They appear as a degenerate stage of a species, which is no longer capable of presenting, or tolerating new ideas, at a time that valid new conceptions of policy are desperately wanted.

In brief, if our adversary recognizes that his recent strategic reverses are caused by the fact that several of his generals are fanatically stupid commanders, one should acknowledge the fact that this probably correct perception has arisen, but should not fear that our reporting that truth renders EIR in any sense well-wishers of the adversary’s cause.

Rather, such developments on the adversary’s side as the recognition that the current basket of Windsors or Thatcherites may be the proverbial “runts of the litter,” should warn us not to be misled into any self-deluding scape-goating of Prince Philip. He has been but the defective instrument of a policy-interest which was defined millennia before he was born, and will be a continuing danger for at least the several decades immediately before us, after he is departed.

The crime documented in this report is by far the greatest crime perpetrated in all human history: the assured destruction of all civilized human life on this planet, and perhaps, possibly, also a set of wicked actions leading to the extinction of the human species.

Since 1961, Prince Philip has supplied a crucial leading role in heading up this global criminal conspiracy, but he did not originate the underlying policy. That policy we trace immediately to the nineteenth-century Darwin-Huxley circles and their role in creating the Eugenics network which, among its other productions, sponsored the Hitler dictatorship in Germany, and also its satellite, Margaret Sanger‘s Planned Parenthood organization.

Prince Philip’s role should be seen as continuing that same tradition which produced Hitler earlier, and to carry that criminal tradition to new extremes, of which some television fans might say,

“To boldly go where no man has gone before.”

Then, if you find them guilty…
Following our presentation of the evidence against the culpable Prince and his more notable accomplices, we have appended an appropriate “sentencing report.”

That concluding section will provide you jurors a summary of what known human history has to tell us about the origins and nature of the specific quality of criminality which the Prince, the World Wildlife Fund, and their accomplices represent. When you decide how you must judge the perpetrators charged here, we ask that you not lose sight of the setting in which this case is being heard.

The evil permeating the criminality of the Prince and his accomplices is very old, as old as the dimly lit fringes of earliest known history. The ultimate enemy is not this unfortunate Prince, but rather that specific tradition of criminality fairly described as “oligarchism.”

That oligarchism is the specific infectious agent responsible for the moral and mental sickness shown by the accused Prince and his accomplices. In selecting a just and prudent course of action in the matter of the ongoing criminality documented here, we must rise above the prevailing decadence of most current international legal and related practice, to cure the problem, rather than, as the victors perverted the post-World War II Nuremberg Trials, seeking to hide our own earlier negligence behind some conspicuous suffering imposed upon inculpated scapegoats.

It is shown to us, respecting the character of this moment of history, that the world has tolerated for more than three decades a criminal conspiracy of an enormity already vastly exceeding, in its toll upon humanity to date, the memorable atrocities of Hitler’s crew. We do not go so far as to suggest that this signals the onset of an Apocalypse; but, it does symptomize a crisis fairly seen as permeated with an apocalyptical quality.

This case expresses the threatened onset of a “new dark age,” global in scope, echoing, and exceeding in intensity the “new dark ages” attending the collapse of the Roman Empire in western Europe, and the so-called “New Dark Age” of Europe’s 14th Century.

In brief, the enormity of the Prince’s crime, presently coinciding with the threatened imminent disintegration of the global monetary and financial systems, bespeaks the close of a five-hundred-odd-year cycle in the history of European civilization.

To the historian, such a spectacle is to be compared only with the numerous earlier, analogous cases of closing periods of dynastic collapse which have characterized the known history of every culture on this planet, prior to the Renaissance advent of modern European christian civilization. No dynasty, however ancient or powerful, of whatever culture, has ever survived the end of such a dynastic cycle.

The Windsors show no talent for becoming an exception to that rule.

Such evidence helps the jurors assembled better to understand that this Windsor dynasty were almost certainly turned into a pitied relic very soon, whatever we do or fail to do in this proceeding. Our task is not to punish the Windsors (although we may be hastening their retirement), but rather to act with greater prudence than any ruling culture has shown at the close of any earlier time or place of apocalyptical crisis.

Our work here will be rightly judged not by some silly “Nuremberg-style” sentence we might recommend for the Prince and his accomplices. It is relevant to this admonition, to recognize, from considering how many millions of onlookers have tolerated the nature and scope of the crimes which the Prince has conducted openly, how little enduring good was done, or personal political courage shown by the Nuremberg courts after World War II.

The nominally exonerated Schacht, and Auschwitz’s von Knierem had but recently departed the stage, and the benches at Nuremberg had scarcely grown cold, in 1961, when the Prince and his accomplices launched a scheme vaster and more evil than any yet known to have been conducted or conceived by Hitler’s crew.

The crimes of the House of Windsor must be seen rightly by this jury, by borrowing the eyes of history.

The Prince’s is a most monstrous crime, but yet, more significantly, the symptom of the terminal sickness of a civilization which has tolerated the conspicuous promotion of such evil policies and agencies.

The essence of the matter is that this Prince has been a cat’s-paw of the decadence of our age, and, in that way, a marker for the onrushing doom of ruling global institutions bereft of the moral fitness to survive. It is that latter sickness, not the mere symptom, to which our justice must address its curative powers.

We conclude these opening remarks thus: The challenge posed by the evidence set before you, is:

Can you, the jurors, be provoked by the horror of the fact that no solution for the collapse of this civilization exists under the presently generally accepted rules of conduct, into discovering the needed radical changes in axioms of policymaking, those changes which might enable humanity to rebuild a ruined society immediately from the ruins of the collapsed dynasty, without living through the intervening nightmare of yet another “New Dark Age” ?

To a summary of that purpose, we shall return in the concluding epilogue of this proceeding today.

The Trial BeginsPrince Philip’s Allgemeine SS
by Jeffrey Steinberg

Most citizens of the Americas believe that Queen Elizabeth II is a figurehead with virtually no political or financial power.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

As the present head of the Windsor Dynasty, she is the sole sovereign head of state of the United Kingdom and 16 other states, and also exerts more subtle but equally deadly authority over the other 33 nations of the British Commonwealth.

FIGURE 1
The Royal Family Tree

But the power of the House of Windsor also derives from Queen Elizabeth IPs status as the “chief executive officer” of an informal body known to some as the Club of the Isles, which combines the political and financial clout of a far more extensive combine of intermarried European royal and princely families that extends from Scandinavia to Greece.

FIGURE 2
Prince Philip’s Allqemeine SS

The estimated combined financial worth of the Club of the Isles is greater than $1 trillion and the holdings in which the club has controlling interest are believed to exceed $9 trillion.

The world petroleum supply is dominated by the British royal household, as is much of the world’s supply of precious metals and raw materials, through such “Crown jewels” as Rio Tinto Zinc, Lonrho, and DeBeers Anglo American Corp.

The Royal Consort, Prince Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh, plays a similar role in his capacity as “chief operations officer” for the Club of the Isles, and as the head of the World Wide Fund for Nature. What’s more, Prince Philip is the principal public spokesman for the number one priority policy of the club: to reduce the population of the world to below 1 billion people within several generations.

To accomplish this requires genocide on a global scale exceeding the slaughter that has been unleashed against Africa over the past 35 years.

To accomplish this, the executive agency directed by Prince Philip has created a powerful apparatus, an SS, made up of Royal Chartered trusts and corporations, propaganda fronts, assassination and terror agencies, etc. – the world’s most efficient Murder, Inc.

Through the Club of the Isles (see p. 9), the Windsor Dynasty functions as primus inter pares for an extended royal family that claims the thrones of Russia, Prussia, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, and scores of smaller principalities.

Royal Consort to Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Philip founded the World Wildlife Fund in 1961, became its International President in 1981. Former president, Zoological Society London (ZSL). See p. 20 for selected quotes from his writings.

Zoological Society of London

Founded in 1826 by Sir Stamford Raffles, former Viceroy of India and founder of Singapore. Inspired the New York and Frankfurt Zoological Societies. Mother organization of the London Zoo. Royal Geographical Society (RGS).

Founded in 1830 as the Geographical Society of London; Royal Charter in 1859. Sponsored major colonial expeditions such as Livingstone’s and Sir Richard Burton’s into Africa. The boards of the ZSL and RGS are almost indistinguishable from that of the WWF; Prince Philip was president of the ZSL in the 1970s.

The ZSL and RGS stand at the pinnacle of the British intelligence establishment. The ZSL’s recent chief executives: Julian Huxley, 1935-42; Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke, Senior Chief of Staff for the U.K., 1950-54; Lord Solly Zuckerman, U.K. Government Chief Scientific Adviser, 1955-84; Sir Frank Chappell, the former General Commanding Officer (GOC) of the British Army, present director, member of WWF-U.K.

The ZSL and RGS share the WWF’s eugenics ideology, and the Darwin-Huxley tribe is omnipresent in both. Eugenics “founder” Sir Francis Galton was a major mid-19th century power in the RGS. Michael Huxley, Julian’s cousin, founded its Geographical Magazine. RGS officials together with the WWF’s Sir Peter Scott founded Survival International.

RTZ, Shell, Lonrho, ICI, Unilever, DeBeers, AAC:

See pp. 15-16.

The Fauna and Flora Preservation Society

Founded in 1903 as the Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire. Second oldest British conservation organization after the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (1889).

Has a panel of 108 “honorary overseas consultants” in 70 countries. Maintains liaisons with most other key conservation bodies. Mother organization, with the Eugenics Society, of the IUCN and the WWF. Housed since its founding in the London Zoo. Patron: Her Majesty the Queen.

“The Fauna” was founded as an arm of British imperial policy under the guise of “conservation.” Its founding vicepresidents, Lords Milner, Grey, Cromer, Curzon, and Minto, were all imperial proconsuls, chiefly in India and Africa.

As Sir Peter Scott, FFPS chairman for most of the three decades from the 1960s until his death in 1989, noted in his history of the Fauna:

“Since the Empire at that time covered about a quarter of the surface of the globe, it was a fair start on internationalizing the infant wildlife conservation movement.”

Chief aim of FFPS was to expand the national park system worldwide. It convened international conferences in 1933, 1938, and 1953 to plan new national parks. Its secretary, Colonel Stevenson-Hamilton, established the Kruger National Park in South Africa. The architect of the Kenyan National Park system, Col. Mervyn Cowie, is still an FFPS board member today.

FFPS personnel have dominated the WWF and the IUCN since their founding, frequently chairing the IUCN’s two key committees, the Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas; and the Survival Service Commission, concerned with WWF-style “species preservation,” chaired for almost two decades starting in 1963 by Peter Scott.

The Nature Conservancy

Founded by Royal charter inl949.0ne of the U.K.’s four official research bodies under the Privy Council. Known as the “world’s first statutory conservation body,” it became one of the most powerful postwar covert operations of the Crown.

From his influential post as permanent secretary to the Lord President of the Council (the deputy prime minister), Max Nicholson wrote the legislation for the Conservancy, then left his government post to head it, 1952-66. Nicholson personally developed most of the major strategies and tactics of the world environmentalist movement for the next decades.

He started the campaign against DDT later popularized by Rachel Carson in The Silent Spring; drafted the constitution for the IUCN; set up and chaired the committee which established the WWF in 1961; and chose Sir Peter Scott as the WWF’s first chairman, who held the post for over two decades.

The subtitle to his 1970 history of the postwar environmental movement is “A Guide for the New Masters of the Earth.”

IUCN, UNESCO, UNEP:

IUCN:

The Swiss-based International Union for the Conservation of Nature was formed in 1948 by Sir Julian Huxley; its constitution was written by the British Foreign Office. Bringing together 68 nations, 103 government agencies, and 640 non-governmental organizations, the IUCN is nominally tied to the United Nations, but is outside of its oversight.

The WWF was originally formed to fund the IUCN; many of the IUCN’s key commissions are run by the Fauna Preservation Society. Together with the UNEP and the World Resources Institute, the IUCN launched the “Global Biodiversity Strategy,” which guides the conservation planning of many nations.

Its staff directly plan the conservation strategies and administer the national parks systems of many former colonies today. It sees the preservation of “biodiversity” as its main mission.

The IUCN president is Sir Shridath Ramphal, the former Secretary General of the British Commonwealth 1975-90; its director general, Martin Holdgate, was a senior official of the United Kingdom’s Department of the Environment.

UNESCO:

The United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, is a Paris-based specialized U.N. organization that was designed by Sir Julian Huxley, who also was its first director general. In his founding 1946 document, Huxley defines Unesco’s two main aims as popularizing the need for eugenics, and protecting wildlife through the creation of national parks, especially in Africa. With a $550 million annual budget, Unesco funds a vast network of conservation groups; it defines protection of the environment as one of its three main goals.

UNEP:

The United Nations Environment Program was formed at the 1972 U.N. Conference on the Environment, which was organized by WWF founder Maurice Strong.

Based in Kenya, the UNEP works closely with Unesco, the IUCN, and the WWF in diverse ventures. Its World Conservation Monitoring Center in Cambridge, England, jointly sponsored with the IUCN and the WWF, is the central intelligence agency of the conservation movement.

World Wildlife Fund (Since 1987, World Wide Fund for Nature):

See p. 18 far below.

1001 Club:

See p. 19 far below.

World Resources Institute:

Founded in 1982 under the guidance of WWF U.S.A. president Russell E. Train with generous grants from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the MacArthur Foundation. James Gustave Speth was appointed president. Speth was a cofounder of the Natural Resources Defense Council and formerly the chairman of the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality and the director of the Global 2000 project.

After 11 years at WRI Speth was made head of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in 1993. WRI is the main think-tank for U.S. environmental groups, putting forward study after study promoting the new world order and the global biodiversity strategy. WRI is affiliated with the Internationallnstitute for Environment and Development in London, formerly headed by Lady Jackson (Barbara Ward).

Goldsmith/The Ecologist:

Sir James Goldsmith and his older brother Edward are leading financiers of the WWF apparatus globally. Along with John Aspinall, major funders of Survival International and Friends of the Earth. In 1970, Edward Goldsmith founded The Ecologist, magazine of the radical wing of the green movement. Edward also launched the Green Party movement in the U.K. which spawned Green parties in every European Community state.

Sierra Club:

The Sierra Club was founded in 1892 by preservationist John Muir with funding from the famous robber baron E.H. Harriman. Mostly an outing club until the 1950s, the Sierra Club became a radical environmental lobbying organization under the leadership of David Brower. In 1969, Brower left Sierra Club to create the more radical Friends of the Earth. Later on he also founded the Earth Island Institute.

Michael McCloskey replaced Brower and proceeded to refocus the Sierra Club into an organization dedicated to preventing all commercial uses of public lands in the United States. In 1971, leaders of the Sierra Club in Canada created Greenpeace. In 1979, the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society gave David Foreman a 10-year contract to create and lead an overtly terrorist environmental organization. That organization became Earth First!

Greenpeace:

Founded in 1971 out of the Don’t Make a Wave Committee, to coopt drug-rock-sex counterculture victims into WWF-sponsored “direct action.” Now has branches in 24 countries, with headquarters in The Netherlands and an annual budget of $157 million. Spawned ecoterrorist groups Sea Shepherd, Lynx, Animal Liberation Front, and Earth First!

Current director is Lord Peter Melchett, heir to the Imperial Chemical Industries fortune. Behind-the-scenes operator from early years is David McTaggart, Canadian confidence man, who received funding from WWF Executive Director Sir Peter Scott to purchase ships to assault nuclear test ranges, whaling fleets, and seal hunters.

Friends of the Earth:

Founded in 1969 by David Ross Brower, former executive director of Sierra Club. In 1990, merged with Environmental Policy Institute and Oceanic Society and obtained tax-exempt status from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Moved into England in 1970, with financing from the Goldsmith and Rothschild interests and John Aspinall.

Engages in direct action and other activities particularly targeting nuclear power plants. Director of FOE U.K. during the 1980s was Jonathan Porritt, son of ex-governor general of New Zealand. Founder of FOE France, Brice LaLonde was later appointed President Francois Mitterrand’ s environmental minister. FOE, like Greenpeace, deployed personnel to found Earth First!

MAP 1
The British Commonwealth

Survival International:

Founded in London in 1969 with sponsorship of WWF chairman Sir Peter Scott to provide funding to “help tribal peoples protect their lands, environment and way of life.” Originally named Primitive Peoples Fund. Continues close collaboration with WWF and the Royal Geographic Society.

Other founding members include: Edward Goldsmith, John Aspinall, Nicolas Guppy, Francis Huxley, and Royal Geographic Society director John Hemming. South American Indians, particularly Yanomami, were initial targets of SI operations. In 1972, spawned Cultural Survival, headed by British anthropologist David Maybury-Lewis and chaired by Queen Margarethe of Denmark.

Environmental Investigative Agency:

London-headquartered private eye unit spawned out of Greenpeace U.K. Founder is Allan Thornton, an early leader of Greenpeace. Financed by Animal Welfare Institute and other WWF fronts to conduct “muckraking” investigations into environmental abuses.

Sea Shepherd, Lynx, Earth First!, Rainforest Action Network.

See p. 55.

MAP 2
WWF’s global outreach

Prince Philip’s Corporate SS
by Anthony K. Wikrent and Allen Douglas

The modern multinationals typified by Royal Dutch Shell, Unilever, and RTZ, which have done so much to strangle Africa and the rest of the world in the postwar period, are merely the modern, slightly disguised form of the Crown-chartered “merchant adventurer” companies of Elizabethan England and later.

Like their often Venetian-sponsored Elizabethan predecessors , some of which merged to become the British East India Company in the late sixteenth century, they are granted a “royal charter” to operate globally on behalf of the Crown and its associated families. The Anglo-Dutch firm Royal Dutch Shell, for instance, so prominent in Africa and in the World Wide Fund for Nature, dates from the financial arrangements established when William of the Dutch house of Orange took the British throne in 1688, with Venetian backing.

When Africa was colonized by the European powers in the 1880s and 1890s, that process, too, was under charter from the Crown, to such companies as the Royal Niger Company, the British East Africa Company, and Cecil Rhodes’s British South Africa Company.

Today’s WWF backers, particularly its “Africa division” listed below, as well as those in the flow chart on the following page, are the direct descendants of these late-nineteenth-century Crown companies, if not earlier ones, like Shell.

Tiny Rowland’s Lonrho Corp. is typical: As of 1990 the employer of over 100,000 people in Africa, it is the continent’s major private food producer, and a powerhouse in precious metals.

In 1961, at the time Lonrho was vastly upgraded in order to subvert and destroy the emerging independent African nations, it was a subsidiary of Cecil Rhodes’s still-existing British South Africa Company. And, as EIR has documented in its 1992 book, Tiny Rowland: The Ugly Face of Neocolonialism in Africa, the money and connections to launch this new British East India Co. for Africa came from City of London financier Harley Drayton and his 117 Old Broad Street Group, Crown Agents for the colonies and the managers of the private fortune of the queen.

Drayton’s longtime personal assistant was the Scottish aristocrat Angus Ogilvy, whose wife, Princess Alexandra of Kent, is presently the head of WWF-U.K.

From 1961 on, Rowland was the chief financier for the gangs whose genocidal wars have devastated Africa. He often financed both sides of a struggle at the same time, beginning with the Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia and its black opposition around Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe, continuing into his financing both the Frelimo government and its Renamo opposition in Mozambique, and both the MPLA government and its Unita opposition in Angola.

The queen is the world’s wealthiest woman, with an acknowledged fortune of $ 13 billion (Harpers and Queen magazine, January 1991). In reality it is far greater, but she is exempt from having to disclose her holdings.

The following entities, with major assets particularly in Africa, are politically directed by, and often substantially owned by, the Crown:

RTZ Corp. PLC.

Second-largest mining firm in the world. Established in 1873 by Hugh Matheson of the Jardine Matheson opium-trading firm. RTZ’s third chairman, Sir Auckland Geddes, worked with Sir Ernest Oppenheimer to reorganize control of raw materials production in Africa in the 1920s and 1930s.

Anglo-American Corp. of South Africa, Ltd.

Largest mining firm in the world; dominates the economy of South Africa. Constitutes, together with the two De Beers companies, the Oppenheimer empire. The Rothschilds and J.P. Morgan and Co. provided Sir Ernest Oppenheimer the financing to cartelize diamond and gold production in South Africa between 1902 and 1929.

Control world diamond production. Established by Cecil Rhodes in 1880; by 1888, with Rothschild backing, controlled 90% of the world’s diamond production. ,.

Barclays PLC.

Major banking power in Africa. Tightly controlled by the Barclay, Freame, Bevan, and Buxton families, the latter of which co-founded the WWF.

Shell Trading & Transport PLC and Shell U.K. Ltd.

World’s largest petrochemical producer. ST&f, a British holding company, owns 40% of the Royal Dutch Shell group of over 2,000 companies worldwide (the other 60% i^ owned by Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.); forged by Sir Henri Deterding in 1903 with the French Rothschilds.

N.M. Rothschild & Sons Ltd.

Founded in 1803 with the assistance of the Thurn und Taxis family, one of the “princely families” of the Hapsburg Empire, originally the Venetian Torre e Tasso family. NMR&S historically financed the expansion of the Venetian-modeled British Empire, as they did by bankrolling Cecil Rhodes’s gold and diamonds empire.

Imperial Chemical Industries PLC.

Key part of world chemical cartel. Formed in 1926 by Lord Melchett and others by merging the four largest British chemical firms. The present Lord Melchett, grandson of ICI’s founder, is head of Greenpeace, United Kingdom.

Unilever.

Owns vast plantations in Africa and the continent’s largest trading company (United Africa Co.); key part of the world food cartel, particularly in fats and edible oils. Formed by 1930s strategic merger of English Lever Brothers firm, which owned the West African heirs to the Royal Niger Co, with a Dutch company.

Fig. 4

Prince Philip’s Corporate SS

The ‘1001 Club’ – a nature trustby Scott Thompson

Membership in the “1001 Club,” founded in 1971 by Prince Bernhard of The Netherlands, consort to Queen Juliana of the House of Orange, is restricted to 1,001 persons at any given time and is by invitation only.

All members pay a $10,000 initiation fee which goes toward a $10 million trust to bankroll World Wildlife Fund operations. The club donated an office building in Gland, Switzerland, which currently houses the international headquarters of the WWF and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

Initial members were handpicked by Prince Bernhard and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Membership includes representatives of the royal houses of Europe, officials of British Crown corporations, and prominent figures in international organized crime.

Below is a sample of current and past members with brief biographical data.

Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.

Born in 1912, Bernhard is cousin-in-law of Kaiser Wilhelm’s sister, Princess Victoria of Hohenzollern.

In 1934, at the University of Berlin, Bernhard was recruited to Nazi intelligence and eventually assigned to IG Farben (the chemical giant which maintained business links to Britain’s Imperial Chemical Industries throughout the war and produced Zyklon-B gas for the gas chambers).

Because of his Nazi links, Bernhard’s marriage to Queen Juliana of the House of Orange created a scandal in the Netherlands.

Bernhard founded the Bilderberg Society in 1953. Bilderberg sponsors annual secret meeting of North American and European “one world” elites. Bernhard co-founded the WWF in 1961. In 1976, he was caught taking a $1.1 million bribe from Lockheed Corp. He resigned as head of Bilderberg, and from the WWF-International and 1001 Club.

But he remains a dominant behind-the-scenes figure in all three.

Prince Henrik.

President of WWF-Denmark. Prince Juan Carlos. Founder and president of honor of WWF-Spain. He later became King Juan Carlos.

Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan.

Given the title of His Highness by Queen Elizabeth II in 1957 when editor of Paris Review, a publication co-founded by John Train (see box p. 19).

Prince Johannes von Thurn und Taxis (deceased).

Self-proclaimed “head of Venetian intelligence” and heir to one of the most powerful “princely families” of the Holy Roman Empire. The family has extensive land holdings in Bavaria, Portugal, Italy, and Brazil, derived from its role as postmaster of the Hapsburg Empire. His father, Max, founded Hitler’s Allgemeine SS and headquartered it at the family’s Regensburg Castle in Bavaria.

Chairman and CEO of the Hollinger Corp., a media conglomerate with major newspapers in Britain, Canada, the United States, Israel, and Australia. Originally called Argus Corp., a postwar restructuring of the wartime British intelligence front company War Supplies, Ltd., Hollinger is the leading press organ of the House of Windsor and recently led the propaganda campaign against U.S. President Bill Clinton.

Baron Aubrey Buxton of Alsa.

Life Peer. Vice president of the World Wildlife Fund-U.K. under Prince Philip. The Buxton family has run Barclays Bank.

Vice president of WWF-International and of the IUCN (1966-69); director of Hoffman-LaRoche, the Swiss pharmaceutical firm.

Alexander King.

Co-founder in 1968 of the Club of Rome with Aurelio Peccei. Responsible for the club’s book Limits to Growth, which led a revival of the malthusian argument for drastic reduction of world population.

Jonkheer John H. Loudon.

Knighthoods from the British and Dutch royal families. Bemhard’s handpicked successor in 1977 to become international president of the World Wide Fund for Nature. Former CEO of the Royal Dutch Shell Group; chairman of Shell Oil Co. until 1976.

Sir Peter Scott.

Knight of the British Empire (deceased). Chairman, World Wide Fund for Nature since its inception as the WWF-I in 1961; chairman, Survival Service Commission of the IUCN since 1963; founder of the Wildfowl Trust at Slimbridge, Gloucestershire in 1964.

Vice president WWF-I until 1975. First executive director of the U.N. Environment Program until 1975, having previously served for two years as secretary general of the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment. Chairman, Bureau of the IUCN. Undersecretary general, United Nations (1985-87). Was charged by the secretary general to run the U.N.-sponsored Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in June 1992. Appointed by the Canadian government as chairman, Petro-Canada (1976-78); currently chairman of Ontario Hydro.

Gustavo Cisneros.

Venezuelan billionaire and Rockefeller family hanger-on, linked to drug money-laundering circles. In early-1994, the family’s Banco Latino collapsed and was seized by the Venezuelan government. Brother Ricardo Cisneros, a director of Banco Latino, is a fugitive from justice. Ran BIOMA, a leading Venezuelan “environmentalist group” shut down after caught faking dolphin killings.

D.K. Ludwig (deceased).

Businessman who made a fortune destroying the Amazon rainforests and later helped organized crime syndicate boss Meyer Lansky to establish his drug money-laundering empire in the Bahamas.

Fred Meuser.

The bagman for the $1.1 million bribe to Prince Bernhard from Lockheed Corp.

Tibor Rosenbaum (deceased).

First Mossad logistics chief. His Geneva-based Banque du Credit International was identified by Life magazine in 1967 as a money laundry for Meyer Lansky. Together with 1001 member Maj. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield (deceased), Rosenbaum’s network financed Permindex, the corporate entity which New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison charged was a vehicle for the Kennedy assassination. French intelligence established that Permindex laundered $200,000 through BCI, to finance several aborted assassination attempts against Charles de Gaulle.

Robert Vesco.

International fugitive, alleged “American Connection” to the Medellin Cartel. Initially sponsored by the Swiss branch of the Rothschild family to take over the Lansky-affiliated Investors Overseas Service (IOS). Last known address: Havana, Cuba.

Anton Rupert

Co-founder of the 1001 Club and chairman of the WWF-South Africa. Rupert is owner of Rembrandt tobacco interests and a protege of World War II chief of British MI-6 Sir Stewart Menzies.

Sir Kenneth Kleinwort

Owner of Kleinwort Benson, one of Britain’s oldest banks.

Henry Keswick

Chairman of Jardine Matheson, the British trading company created by Lord Palmerston to service the Far East opium trade during the 19th-century. Brother John Keswick is chairman of Hambros Bank, a backer of WWF, and a director of the Bank of England.

Edmond Safra

Chairman of Safra Bank, one-time owner of American Express Bank, and target of U.S. and Swiss government investigations as a drug money launderer.

Sir Francis de Guingand

Former head of British Military Intelligence, now residing in South Africa.

The WWF – race science and world governmentby Allen Douglas

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF, now the World Wide Fund for Nature), was founded in 1961 for one stated purpose: to raise money to drastically expand the operations of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Established in Gland, Switzerland in 1948 on a British Foreign Office-drafted constitution, the IUCN today boasts that it is the largest “professional” international conservation organization – as of 1994 comprising 68 states, 103 governmental agencies, and over 640 non-governmental organizations, “many of global reach.”

Under the cover of “conserving nature,” the WWF-IUCN has in fact dedicated itself to

reduce the world’s population, particularly in the developing sector

ensure that control of the world’s raw materials remains in the hands of a tiny handful of largely British (or Anglo-Dutch) multinationals.

These two goals, WWF-IUCN spokesmen have repeatedly stated, require a world government.

The WWF has been headed since its inception in 1961 by Prince Philip, the first head of the most important national-sector branch, the WWF-UK, who recruited Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands to be the first head of the WWF-International. After the Lockheed scandals of the mid-1970s, in which Prince Bernhard was caught taking million-dollar bribes to sell airplanes, Philip replaced Bernhard as head of WWF-I. Philip was later replaced as WWF-UK head by Princess Alexandra, first cousin to the queen.

That the Crown has directly run the WWF from the outset is lawful.

The WWF-IUCN is a spin-off of two of Britain’s leading imperial institutions: the Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire (now the Fauna and Flora Preservation Society, FFPS, whose patron is the queen), which laid the groundwork for the game parks throughout Africa; and the Eugenics Society.

The co-founder of both the IUCN and the WWF, Sir Julian Huxley, personally embodied these two currents. He was obsessed with population control, which he called “the problem of our age.” He served on the British government’s Population Investigation Commission between World War I and World War II, was vice president of the Eugenics Society from 1937-44, and was its president when he founded the WWF in 1961. He also served as a vice president of “the Fauna,” as its aristocratic members still fondly call it.

The ideology of both institutions, and of their WWF spawn, dates in its modern form from Sir Francis Galton, who coined the term “eugenics,” and his first cousin, Charles Darwin, who in 1859 authored his infamous Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

Galton aimed to propagate the pseudo-scientific humbug of Darwinism’s “survival of the fittest” in the human arena, and so defined the aims of his “Race Betterment Movement” as:

“To create a new and superior race through eugenics,” which would require the human race to be “culled.”

The Darwin-Huxley tribe and its cousins have propagated this doctrine unceasingly over the past century and a half.

What became the WWF took shape in the pre-World War II period in the Political and Economic Planning satellite of a Rhodes-descended Foreign Office think-tank, the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Its “planning” focused on eugenics, raw materials control, and world-government; its two top officials,Max Nicholson and Julian Huxley, later founded both the IUCN and the WWF.

Huxley continued his eugenics fixation after the war as the first head of the U.N. Educational, Social, and Cultural Organization (Unesco).

As he said in its founding document,

“Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for Unesco to see that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

World government was the answer, Huxley and Nicholson emphasized, and “wildlife conservation” was a pathway to this goal. Huxley said that “the spread of man must take second place to the conservation of other species.”

His coworker Nicholson, permanent secretary to five postwar British foreign ministers and one of Britain’s most powerful civil servants, said in his 1970 history of the world environmental movement, The Environmental Revolution: A Guide for the New Masters of the World, which he and Huxley had largely founded, that, given the migratory patterns of the world’s birds,

“the lesson has been learnt and unreservedly accepted that Ducks Unlimited means Sovereignty Superseded. There are many subjects besides ducks where the same lesson applies, but few where it has been mastered.”

In 1960, as much of Africa was preparing for independence, the 74-year-old Huxley took an arduous three-month tour of Africa, preaching that the newly independent states could not be trusted to “conserve wildlife.”

Under that cover, and with the aim of subverting and destroying independence, Huxley and Nicholson linked up the following year with their royal soulmate Prince Philip.

The WWF was born.

Prince Philip’s friends ran ‘Get LaRouche’ plot
When Henry Kissinger, an asset of London’s Chatham House (Royal Institute for International Affairs) and self-described British agent, successfully lobbied officials of the Reagan Department of Justice and the FBI to launch a politically motivated witch-hunt against U.S. economist Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement in early 1983, it was a longtime activist in the Prince Philip orbit who was given the job of running a global media propaganda campaign to set the stage for the railroad prosecution and possible assassination of LaRouche.

John Train, a Wall Street banker and cousin of WWF U.S.A. President Russell Train, convened a series of meetings beginning in April 1983 which drew together a score of journalists, government agents, and officials of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL).

Out of the meetings came a barrage of slanders which appeared in such divergent news outlets as NBC-TV, the Wall Street Journal, Reader’s Digest, and the Soviet magazine Literaturnaya Gazeta.

The Train-led propaganda effort, which was run on behalf of the George Bush-led “secret government” team that financed the narco-terrorist Nicaraguan Contras and sold arms to Ayatollah Khomeini, was instrumental in the December 1988 prosecution of LaRouche and a half-dozen associates. Evidence of the role of the Train salon was systematically suppressed during and after the trial. This evidence should have resulted in overturning the case altogether.

Train runs a New York investment counseling firm, Smith Train, which has been owned by Anglo-Swedish interests since the early 1980s. Two members of the Rothschild family sit on the board of the holding company that owns 50% of Smith Train, and Train’s chief associate in London is Steven Keynes, nephew of John Maynard Keynes, the British economist.

But Train’s deepest ties to Prince Philip come through his 45-year intimate collaboration with Teddy Goldsmith, the older brother of “green” industrialist Sir Jimmy Goldsmith and the publisher of the Ecologist, the house organ of the radical wing of the WWF apparatus. Train and Teddy Goldsmith first hooked up in Paris in the early 1950s, along with “Children of the Sun” literatus Stephen Spender, a “radical” asset of British royal intelligence, to co-found Paris Review.

Teddy Goldsmith was the founder of such key WWF instruments as Survival International and the green parties in Europe.

Sir James, along with Britain’s casino czar and leading environmentalist John Aspinall, bankrolled Friends of the Earth-U.K. when the group was first setting up shop in England, and have been consistent champions of Prince Philip’s WWF ventures.

Prince Philip’s murderous world view, in his own words

We need to ‘cull’ the surplus

Press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

on the occasion of the “Caring for Creation” conference of the North American Conference on Religion and Ecology, May 18,1990.

It is now apparent that the ecological pragmatism of the so-called pagan religions, such as that of the American Indians, the Polynesians, and the Australian Aborigines, was a great deal more realistic in terms of conservation ethics than the more intellectual monotheistic philosophies of the revealed religions.

Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from the University of Western Ontario

Canada, July 1,1983.
For example, the World Health Organization Project, designed to eradicate malaria from Sri Lanka in the postwar years, achieved its purpose. But the problem today is that Sri Lanka must feed three times as many mouths, find three times as many jobs, provide three times the housing, energy, schools, hospitals and land for settlement in order to maintain the same standards.

Little wonder the natural environment and wildlife in Sri Lanka has suffered. The fact [is]… that the best-intentioned aid programs are at least partially responsible for the problems.

Preface to Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

1988, p. 8.
I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the “cull” to the size of the surplus population.

Lecture to the European Council of International Schools

Montreaux, Switzerland, Nov. 14,1986.
The great difficulty about “life” is that we humans are part of it, and it is therefore almost impossible to study objectively… It therefore tends to be anthropocentric and gives scant attention to the welfare of all the other life-forms which share this planet with us.

…When the Bible says that man shall have “dominion” over God’s creation, the choice is between understanding dominion as in “having power over,” or dominion as “having responsibility for.”

A farmer… is respecting the natural system and practicing what ecologists refer to as maintaining a sustainable yield. This is the basis of the economics of nature. It is just as important as the economics of money, since no human activity can be considered in isolation from the natural world which is our life support system.

In other words, once you have interfered with the balance of nature it becomes necessary to maintain the balance by artificial means. This means that some animals have to be killed in the interest of maintaining the health and viability of the species as a whole as well as the benefit of other more vulnerable species. Unfortunately there are many people who object to that sort of thing.

Ecology is not concerned with the fate of individual animals. It accepts the concept of the exploitation of surplus natural resources because that is in the way the natural system works, but it must always be done on the principle of maintaining a sustainable yield… The inexorable rule of nature is that if you mess up your environment you will have to pay a heavy price sooner or later… Just look around the globe today and you cannot fail to notice areas which at one time supported highly successful and civilized populations are either deserts or they have reverted to jungle…

The reason is quite simple: they over-exploited their natural resources and they paid the price.

It is naive to think that we can escape the same fate for very much longer. We are only managing to put off the evil hour by frantically digging up and using mineral resources that can never be renewed. As if that were not enough, we are polluting the atmosphere, the land and the waters with every kind of noxious substance. The “greenhouse effect” alone could well have devastating consequences for all life on earth.

This is a reflection of the duality of man’s brain. The left brain produces the reasonable answers after objective scientific research, while the right brain prefers the acceptable and the emotionally satisfactory answers.

How often do people say,

“That may be so, but I prefer to ‘believe’ or I like to believe… this, that or the other”?

The duality of the brain has created great problems for modern man… It is… significant that successful engineering makes money.

This is in stark contrast to the super-natural, whether it is religious or mythological. In the latter cases the truth may be equally certain, but it is not verifiable, and the outcome of following rules is seldom predictable. It is, of course, possible to exploit magic and mythology commercially, but it could hardly be described as a manufacturing industry…

There is an understandable public pressure for schools and colleges to concentrate on utilitarian subjects to the exclusion of cultural and aesthetic development. In other words, the development of the left brain is given a great deal more attention than that of the right brain…. The trouble is that neglect of the development of the right brain leaves it in a state of vacuum…

This means that the right brain is ready to absorb the first plausible ideas it happens across. The occult, obscure religious rites, parapsychology, astrology and similar attractive but irrational notions are sucked into the vacant space without any discrimination or critical faculty… I also suspect that the use of drugs might be seen as a substitute, or short cut, to filling the vacuum of the right brain…

I mention all this because man’s attitude to nature is partly a function of the left brain and partly a function of the right brain. It is easy enough to encourage an emotional concern for nature and the living world…

Everyone can comprehend the idea of cruelty, very few can comprehend the extinction of a species.

‘Conflict between instinct and reason’Fawley Foundation Lecture. Southampton University, Nov. 24,1967.
The conflict between instinct and reason has reached a critical stage in man’s affairs, largely because the explosion of facts has revealed the instincts for what they are and at the same time it has undermined traditional philosophies and ideologies.

The explosion of facts has effectively altered mankind’s physical and intellectual environment and when any environment changes, the process of natural selection is brutal and merciless.

“Adapt or die” is as true today as it was in the beginning.

Introduction to “Exploitation of the Natural System”

section o/Down to Earth

by HRHPrince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988

It took about three and a half billion years for life on earth to reach the state of complexity and diversity that our ancestors knew as recently as 200 years ago. It has only taken industrial and scientific man those 200 years to put at risk the whole of the world’s natural system. It has been estimated that by the year 2000, some 300,000 species of plants and animals will have become extinct, and that the natural economy, upon which all life depends, will have been seriously disrupted.

Prince Philip, founder and international president of

the World Wildlife Fund, pagan and mass murderer.

The paradox is that this will have been achieved with the best possible intentions.

The human population must be properly fed, human life must be preserved and human existence must be made safer and more comfortable. All these things are obviously highly desirable, but if their achievement means putting the survival of future generations at risk, then there is a pressing obligation on present generations to apply some measure of self-restraint.

Address to Edinburgh University Union

Nov. 24 1969.
We talk about over- and underdeveloped countries; I think a more exact division might be between underdeveloped and overpopulated. The more people there are, the more industry and more waste and the more sewage there is, and therefore the more pollution.

The Fairfield Osborne Lecture

New York, Oct. 1, 1980
If the world pollution situation is not critical at the moment, it is as certain as anything can be that the situation will become increasingly intolerable within a very short time. The situation can be controlled, and even reversed; but it demands cooperation on a scale and intensity beyond anything achieved so far.

I realize that there are vital causes to be fought for, and I sympathize with people who work up a passionate concern about the all too many examples of inhumanity, injustice, and unfairness; but behind all this hangs a deadly cloud. Still largely unnoticed and unrecognized, the process of destroying our natural environment is gathering speed and momentum.

If we fail to cope with the challenge, the other problems will pale into insignificance.

Introduction to “The Population Factor”

section o/Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988

What has been described as the “balance of nature” is simply nature’s system of self-limitation. Fertility and breeding

‘Nicky’ Arundel and the ‘Get LaRouche’ task force

The Hunt Country of Middleburg, Virginia is the home-away-from-home for many of the British elite. Modeled on the mansions of the English countryside, the huge estates are home to some of the wealthiest and most powerful American families.

Middleburg residents welcomed the Duke and Duchess of Windsor in 1941, after he was forced to abdicate the throne for their unswerving allegiance to Adolf Hitler.

Support for the Windsors’ genocidal population policy is maintained today by numerous American members and financial activists in the 1001 Club and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) who make Middleburg and the surrounding countryside their home.

Prominent in this apparatus is Arthur Windsor “Nicky” Arundel, a newspaper publisher and key member of the task force that railroaded Lyndon LaRouche into prison on trumped-up charges. Trained as a propaganda specialist for the CIA in Vietnam in the 1950s, Arundel used the Loudoun Times-Mirror, one of several Hunt Country weeklies owned by him, to retail phony “evidence” against LaRouche and to propagandize for his prosecution.

Arundel founded the African Wildlife Leadership Foundation, of Nairobi, Kenya and Washington, D.C. along with former OSS and CIA hand Kermit Roosevelt and WWF Chairman Russell Train, whose cousin, investment banker John Train, ran the New York salon that targeted LaRouche for prosecution.

The Arundel family’s Wildcat Foundation funds the World Wide Fund for Nature and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Arundel’s sister Jocelyn Arundel Sladen, who was the IUCN liaison to the United States and an intimate of Sir Julian Huxley in the 1950s, is a member of its board of directors.

Marjorie S. Arundel, the mother of Arthur and Jocelyn, was a member of the National Council of the World Wildlife Fund, success create the surpluses after allowing for the replacement of the losses. Predation, climatic variation, disease, starvation – and in the case of the inappropriately named Homo sapiens, wars and terrorism – are the principal means by which population numbers are kept under some sort of control.

Viewed dispassionately, it must be obvious that the world’s human population has grown to such a size that it is threatening its own habitat; and it has already succeeded in causing the extinction of large numbers of wild plant and animal species. Some have simply been killed off.

Others have quietly disappeared, as their habitats have been taken over or disturbed by human activities.

Humans are the greatest threat to survival

Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in People

Dec. 21,1981 titled “Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation.”

Q: What do you consider the leading threat to the environment?

A: Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed – not just for the natural world, but | for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war.

Address to the Joint Meeting of the All-Party Group

on Population and Development and the All-Party Conservation Committee in London, March 11,1987
I do believe… that human population pressure – the sheer number of people on this planet – is the single most important cause of the degradation of the natural environment, of the progressive extinction of wild species of plants and animals, and of the destabilization of the world’s climatic and atmospheric systems.

The simple fact is that the human population of the world is consuming natural renewable resources faster than it can regenerate, and the process of exploitation is causing even further damage. If this is already happening with a population of 4 billion, I ask you to imagine what things will be like when the population reaches 6 and then 10 billion.

All this has been made possible by the industrial revolution and the scientific explosion and it is spread around the world by the new economic religion of development.

Address at the Salford University Degree Ceremony

July 16,1973.
There may be disagreements about the time scale, but in principle there can be little doubt that the population cannot go on increasing indefinitely. Resources presently being used will not last for ever and pollution in its broadest sense, unless severely checked, is bound to increase with population and industrial activity.

Address to All-Party Conservation Committee in London

Feb. 18,1981.
I suspect that the single most important gift of progress to conservation has been the development of human contraception techniques.

The survival of the ‘most important’

Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in People magazine

Dec. 21, 1981 titled “Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation.
Q: Is birth control part of the solution?

A: Yes, but you can’t legislate these problems away. You’ve got to get people to understand the need for it: the more important people, the ones who have responsibilities have got to do it because they’re at the receiving end. They’ve got to accept the measures.

The Chancellor’s Lecture, Stanford University

June4, 1982
As long ago as 1798, Malthus explained what happens when the factors limiting the increase in any population are removed. One of the factors noticed by Darwin was that all species are capable of producing vastly greater populations than can be sustained by existing resources; populations did not increase at the rate at which they are capable was the basis for his theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

The relevance to natural selection of this capacity for overproduction is that as each individual is slightly different to all the others it is probable that under natural conditions those individuals which happen to be best adapted to the prevailing circumstances have a better chance of survival.

Well, so what? Well, take a look at the figures for the human population of this world.

One hundred fifty years ago it stood at about 1,000 million or in common parlance today, 1 billion. It then took about a 100 years to double to 2 billion. It took 30 years to add the third billion and 15 years to reach today’s total of 4.4 billion. With a present world average rate of growth of 1.8%, the total population by the year 2000 will have increased to an estimated 6 billion and in that and in subsequent years 100 million people will be added to the world population each year. In fact it could be as much as 16 billion by 2045.

As a consequence the demand on resources of land alone will mean a third less farm land available and the destruction of half of the present area of productive tropical forest. Bearing in mind the constant reduction of non-renewable resources, there is a strong possibility of growing scarcity and reduction of standards. More people consume more resources.

It is as simple as that; and transferring resources and standards from the richer to the poorer countries can only have a marginal effect in the face of this massive increase in the world population.

Speech at the Margaret Pyke Memorial Trust Dinner in London

Dec. 14 1983.
So long as they [birth control]… remained taboo subjects the chances of making any impression on the human population explosion were that much more remote.

In the introduction to the IUCN Red Data Books which list all animals and plants under threat of extinction, it says that virtually everywhere the major threat to a wild species is loss of habitat to a rapidly increasing human population requiring more space in order to build villages and cities and grow more food.

But starvation and poverty cannot be eradicated solely by increased food and resources at the expense of what remains of the natural world. Any increase in the provision of food and resources must be accompanied by a drastic reduction in the rate of increase in the human population.

Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from the University of Western Ontario

Canada, July 1,1983.
The industrial revolution sparked the scientific revolution and brought in its wake better public hygiene, better medical care and yet more efficient agriculture. The consequence was a population explosion which still continues today.

The sad fact is that, instead of the same number of people being very much better off, more than twice as many people are just as badly off as they were before. Unfortunately all this well-intentioned development has resulted in an ecological disaster of immense proportions.

The Chancellor’s Lecture, Salford University

June 4, 1982.
The object of the WWF is to “conserve” the system as a whole; not to prevent the killing of individual animals. Those who are concerned about their conservation of nature accept that all species are prey to some other species. They accept that most species produce a surplus that is capable of being culled without in any way threatening the survival of the species as a whole.

A Question of Balance

by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Michael Russel (Publishing) Ltd., 1982.
It is curious how many philosophers from Plato to Keynes‘ time have believed in and advocated the control of society by “philosopher kings.”

According to Plato,

“its kings must be those who have shown the greatest ability in philosophy,” but – realistically – he added, “and the greatest aptitude for war.”

Such people may exist in the imagination and occasionally someone with the necessary qualities may briefly dominate the stage of history, but it is a naive appreciation of human nature to imagine that such processed paragons can be invested with the necessary powers and not be tempted to take advantage of their situation.

On Aug. 31, as U. S. troops and relief workers were fighting a losing battle against cholera, dysentery, and starvation among 1 million Rwandan refugees – one half of them children – in eastern Zaire, the New York Times editorial called upon Americans to ponder the fate of Rwanda’s gorilla population:

“For the moment… Rwanda’s gorillas have escaped harm, which is splendid news. Still, the widespread sigh of relief will be muted. Amid so ghastly a human catastrophe in Rwanda, one may feel an uneasy twinge of guilt in worrying about the fate of non-humans.”

“In truth,” says the Times, striking a Darwinian posture, “all living things are bound together in this calamity, and gorillas are a small evolutionary link away from Homo sapiens… Fortunately, a census has accounted for all but two of the creatures whose passing would now be almost like a death in the family.”

This concern for 650 gorillas is one indication of the extent to which Prince Philip’s psychotic confusion of animals with human beings has permeated society.

The Times editorial failed to mention that the gorilla home, Virunga Mountain Park, also gave refuge to the guerrillas of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), who have been waging war on Rwanda since October 1990, with full financing and backing of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and his puppet-mistress, Lady Lynda Chalker, British Minister of Overseas Development.

The double-use of the park as wild animal reserve and as sanctuary to a British-owned insurgency goes to the heart of the British royal family’s grand strategy for Africa. The segregation of large tracts of land as “national parks,” “game reserves,” “ecological reserves,” has led to untold slaughter of humans and animals throughout Africa.

Today, game reserves and national parks occupy 1,988,168 square kilometers of sub-Saharan Africa – 8.2% of the land area, an extent five times the size of California and eight times the size of the United Kingdom. Although some countries, like Mauritania, have been relatively unscathed by the park plague, Tanzania has 40% of its land locked in “parks” (not all shown on map).

As in Rwanda, the parks have multiple purposes:

Taking huge tracts of land out of circulation for economic productive purposes. Although the United Nations magazine Choices predicts that “by the year 2000 nearly half the country of Zimbabwe will be raising its cash from wildlife,” the creation of such parks is one of the biggest land-clearing operations since Genghis Khan leveled Central Asia in the thirteenth century.

As one British source put it:

“When the British wished to keep people out of an area, they tended to make it into a game reserve, which gave them a raison d’etre. ‘This is a game reserve, so you can’t be here.’ “

Over 17% of the land of tiny Rwanda is locked up in such reserves.

While taking land out of circulation for development, the reserves often squat on land that has potentially wealthy yields of strategic resources. For example, the border-area parks of Niger cover an undeveloped uranium field.

Park administration by extra-national agencies such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is a direct assault on national sovereignty. Under the guise of fighting poachers, administration often involves paramilitary forces.

“The function of the national park is to keep control of that land out of the hands of the local government,” one expert informed EIR. “The national park is governed by a board of trustees, at least they originally were… These were autarchies controlled by white conservationists, all of whom were military people.”

In five countries in Africa – Cameroon, Zaire, the Ivory Coast, Kenya, and Zambia – the WWF administers at least one park.

In five other countries, the parks are administered by agencies such as the U.N. Development Program, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, or the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

The parks are safe havens and staging grounds for insurgencies of all stripes. As documented below, many reserves and parks straddle borders, with the parks functioning as “militarized zones.” Prince Philip’s WWF was administering the gorilla program in the Virunga park, while the RPF was using the Virunga to maraud Rwanda.

In fact, RPF-sponsor Uganda has been profiting from the dislocation of the gorillas caused by the RPF operations. According to Africa Analysis, the RPF invasion had sent Rwanda’s gorillas running to Uganda, giving Museveni the opportunity to launch his own “eco-tourism program.”

Without the safe havens, provided by the royal family’s park system, the protracted civil and border wars afflicting Africa since the 1970s would have been impossible.

Mourning the tsetse flyThe parks have wreaked havoc with the economies and ecologies of Africa.

The park system decreased the total energy throughput in the entire ecological system, leading to the proliferation of parasites and disease. This degradation of the human environment has aided in causing the conditions under which new diseases – such as AIDS – are now coursing through a depleted population.

The case of the tsetse fly proves the point. African tribesmen had long kept the tsetse fly – which carries the deadly disease Trypanosomiasis, or sleeping sickness – in check through extensive cultivation and bush clearance. The tribesmen understood that the fly lived off wild game, particularly antelope. For this reason, many tribal chiefs opposed the creation of the parks, and the related ban on hunting, as a threat to their herds.

In 1892, the Zulu protested that the rise of cattle sleeping sickness was due to the increase of large game under the protection afforded by the government.

This theory was proven in 1894 by Dr. David Bruce, who then fought for a change in policy, with limited success. In the area run by the British South Africa Company, colonial authorities suspended game laws and began the elimination of game in an effort to stop the disease. The change brought protest from the Society for the Preservation of Fauna of the Empire.

Dr. George Prentice, a medical missionary, denounced the conservation movement to the British Colonial Office:

“I hold that those who are responsible for the game laws are responsible for the presence of the tsetse, and that victims of Trypanosomiasis are martyrs to the foolish policy of game protection. Any official, high or low, or any member of the Society for the Preservation of Fauna who, in the face of known facts, asserts the contrary, may prove the sincerity of his assertion by allowing us to experiment upon him with our local forms of tsetse.”

By 1925, some 22,000 square miles of southern Rhodesia were fly-infested. Panic forced a policy of game control in areas near colonial activity. In African-inhabited areas, the ban against hunting was enforced.

Today, according to the admissions of Lee and Gerry Durrell, writing for the Conservation Monitoring Center at Cambridge, England, an entity financed by the WWF,

“blood-sucking tsetse flies inhabit 10 million square kilometers of tropical Africa, in a wide band across the continent that takes in 34 countries.”

The authors bemoan modern-day spraying methods which have rendered new areas tsetse-free.

In fact,

“the tsetse-free areas are growing so fast that… there is a real possibility that the spread of livestock onto marginal land will become a threat to wildlife…. The eradication of the tsetse fly may be Africa’s misfortune.”

Or, as Bruce Kinloch, chief park ranger for Tanzania, Malawi, and Uganda, mourns the decline of the tstse:

“The tsetse had long discouraged the often destructive and frequently wasteful use by humans of extensive regions of scenically beautiful, unspoilt wilderness, the natural home of the great game herds.”

Vector spraying in the national parks is strictly forbidden.

Trypanosomiasis has been on the rise since the mid-1980s, especially in Lady Lynda Chalker’s Uganda.

The African parks were created as a cover for destabilization
by Joseph Brewda

Examining a map of Africa which outlines the national park systems, is a most instructive experience.

The sheer size of these parks and park complexes is striking. South Africa’s Kruger park, for example, is the size of the state of Massachusetts, while the vast park complex of Zambia is larger than Great Britain. What is also striking is the fact that a high percentage of Africa’s parks and reserves are sited on national borders. In many cases, these parks come together to form binational and trinational parks that straddle these borders.

These parks are not located in such border regions for aesthetic purposes.

Unlike Europe, for example, where most borders are naturally demarcated by often beautiful mountain ranges and rivers, the boundaries of Africa’s states were arbitrarily drawn by the European powers at their imperial conferences. There is nothing particularly singular on the borders of these states that might not be found in the interior.

The placement of parks in such regions has a different purpose: mass murder and the destabilization of Africa.

Who set up the park movement?There were two distinct phases in the national park and game reserve movement in imperial Africa.

In the first phase, the preservation phase, access to hunting was restricted to the white colonial elite, allegedly to preserve dwindling stocks of favored game. Colonial authorities often evicted native populations from their forest and pasture lands, in order to establish “game reserves,” while restricting the native populations from hunting. This policy was a parody of what had been the practice in medieval Europe.

As far back as 1130, the Norman lords of England had classified certain lands as forest reserves, where only the king and his delegated officers could hunt.

The second phase, which took off after World War II, was the conservation phase, in which hunting was increasingly forbidden to everyone and the ritualized hunting obsession of the colonial elite was gradually replaced by a Gaia-worshipping “ecological consciousness.”

The “national park” replaced the “game reserve,” and the camera largely replaced the carbine.

There were various regulations restricting access to game in Africa dating as far back as the Dutch colonial decrees in the Cape in 1657. But the movement to lock up vast tracts of land as reserves only began in earnest in 1896 under the leadership of British Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister the Marquess of Salisbury, when he called for the introduction of checks on hunting throughout British Africa. In 1900, Salisbury convened a conference of the European imperial powers on the issue in London.

The conference’s agreements virtually eliminated the native ability to hunt, even outside the reserves, by outlawing the use of traditional snares and pitfalls as “inhumane.” At the same time, it reaffirmed an earlier joint agreement among the British, French, German, and Portuguese colonies’ authorities banning the native use of the firearm.

The Society for the Preservation of Fauna in the Empire, which later spawned the World Wildlife Fund, was formed to ensure that the 1900 convention was implemented.

From the beginning, the society, affectionately known as “the Fauna,” was associated with the British Museum, specifically the Natural History division that had been created by Charles Darwin’s “bulldog,” Thomas H. Huxley.

In 1933, another conference, following up the 1900 conference, was convened in London. The British delegation was led by the Earl of Onslow, who was also the head of the Fauna. The most important result of the conference was a provision for the establishment of national parks in Africa. The enabling legislation of most countries’ game parks in Africa today, dates back to colonial decrees enacted in the aftermath of the 1933 conference.

The national parks and reserves constituted by the 1900 and 1933 agreements legally established internal frontiers within the African colonies that could not be crossed by the native population, on the pretext of protecting wildlife.

These internal frontiers, forming colonial enclaves, continued in effect after the colonies gained independence.

The Kruger precedentThe first reserves in Africa predated the 1900 London conference.

They were created by South African President Paul Kruger in 1889. One of the reserves was the Sabi reserve, now Kruger park, which was created along the border with the Portuguese colony of Mozambique.

Kruger created the parks, but the Boer War between Britain and the Afrikaners intervened. In the process, the park region was subjected to a brutal campaign by Lord Kitchener in which crops were destroyed, cattle butchered, and wildlife killed, in order to deny the Boers food.

Zambia was the forward base of operations and safe haven for all the “liberation movements” operating in southern Africa contesting white minority or colonial rule in the 1960s, 70s, and’80s.

The Angolan UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola) and the MPLA (Popular Movement of the Liberation of Angola) were both based in the huge Zambian park complex that borders Angola, specifically the West Zambezi game management area 1, in the 1960s and 1970s. The park was used as a safe-haven and point of infiltration of Angola. After the abandonment of colonial rule in 1975 and the coming to power of the MPLA, UNITA continued to use the park as the base for its 17-year civil war with the MPLA government.

The Namibian SWAPO was based in the Sioma Ngwezi national park 2, contiguous with the West Zambezi game management area.

The ANC of South Africa was based just east of the Sioma Ngwezi national park 3. There was another ANC base just east of the Mosi-pa-Tunya national park 4, on the border with Rhodesia.

The ZANU and ZAPU (Zimbabwean liberation movements) were also based just east of the Mosi-pa-Tunya park in the same area as the ANC 4. ZANU later set up a base over the border in Mozambique, opposite Zambia’s Lower Zambezi park 6.

The Frelimo (of Mozambique) had a base of operations in Zambia’s Luana and West Petauke park, contiguous with the Lower Zambezi park 5.

Rhodesia/Zimbabwe:

During the period of white minority rule, Rhodesia’s Ghonarezhou Game Reserve, which borders Mozambique 7, was the base from which the Selous Scouts, an irregular formation put together by the top ecologist of the Rhodesian park system, launched raids into Zambia and Mozambique.

Following the creation of Zimbabwe in 1980, the park continued to be used as a military base, but this time to block Renamo’s raids. Renamo is an insurgent movement operating primarily against Mozambique that was created by the former head of Rhodesian intelligence.

In 1984, the Zimbabwe parks department created Operation Stronghold (with WWF funding), allegedly to stop rhino poaching. A least 145 “poachers” were killed, reportedly including officers of the ANC military wing.

South Africa:

Renamo safe-haven; reportedly trained there by the World Wildlife Fund’s Operation Lock. Similar training is being used to create a civil war in South Africa through “black on black” terrorism.

Renamo’s HQ is at Phalambora, one mile from the gate of Kruger national park, which borders Mozambique 8. The park is also Renamo’s training area.

Kruger is bordered by several privately administered game parks which have also reportedly been used for Renamo training and safe-haven, including the Bongani Mountain Lodge, the Kapama Game reserve, the Timbavati Nature reserve, and the Sabi-Sand reserve.

Renamo also has a base in Ndumu park on the border with Mozambique 9; in the Muzuli reserve in Natal; and in the parks of the former KaNgwane homeland.

Reportedly, the Maputoland game reserve 10 and the Mkuze game park 11 in Kwazulu, have also been used as bases for launching “black on black,” so-called “Third force” terrorism, intended to provoke tribal war throughout South Africa.

Namibia:

The “Koevoet,” “crowbar squad,” allegedly trained to counter poaching in Namibia’s Etosha park 12, was later used to run black-on-black killings in South Africa.

Angola:

The East Germans trained the Cubans at the Bicuan and Mupa national parks during the late 1960s and early 1970s 13, to help the MPLA government counter UNITA forces. The East Germans also trained the West German Baader Meinhof terrorists there.

Expansion plans
The vast complex of parks straddling the borders of southern African countries is growing. According to understated IUCN figures, already 30% of Zambia; 13% of Zimbabwe; 17% of Botswana; 6% of Angola; 13% of Namibia; 9% of Mozambique; and 5% of South Africa is locked up in national parks and game reserves.

These existing parks are arrayed in large complexes which often cross several borders, constituting huge transnational park complexes outside the control of any government. The total land area of the contiguous park system of Zambia, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, and Angola is 259,000 sq km, slightly larger than the United Kingdom.

Farther south we see the Kruger national park of South Africa bordering Mozambique, 20,000 sq km by itself, about the size of Massachusetts.

There are two vast new additions to this overall system being planned: a huge complex in Mozambique across the border from South Africa Kruger’s park A, and a massive expansion of Botswana’s park system B. The Republic of South Africa is now negotiating with Mozambique to integrate their border park systems into a single binational authority.

The WWF is negotiating with Mozambique to privatize its park system, making this South African takeover easier.

In 1902, the park was reestablished by Britain’s Lord Milner, an associate of African empire-builder Cecil Rhodes, after South Africa became a British colony. The park’s first warden, Maj. James Stevenson-Hamilton, had seen active duty in the Boer War in 6th Dragoon guards.

Lord Milner instructed him to clean up the park of “kaffirs” and white shareholders, and to “make himself thoroughly unpleasant to everyone.”

Over the next 45 years, until his retirement in 1946, Stevenson-Hamilton carried out these instructions ruthlessly, clearing 11,000 square miles of countryside of its original inhabitants and implementing a military “anti-poaching campaign.”

Even those natives who were not evicted had to leave, as hunting had been their major source of meat; they poured into the cities and mines, where they became virtual slave labor for the new British regime. As a result of this policy, the major earned the epithet “skukuza” (“he who sweeps clean”). The headquarters, Skukuza, of Kruger park today is named in his honor.

Stevenson-Hamilton’s system of warfare against the native population, in the guise of wildlife protection, in which he and his game wardens constituted themselves as virtual dictators, was explicitly cited as the basis of all subsequent national parks policy in Britain’s African colonies by Col. Mervyn Cowie, who created the first colonial park in Kenya in 1946. Cowie ran the parks system there for 20 years.

On his retirement, he reported how he had confiscated tens of thousands of square miles of land from the native inhabitants, implemented a mass-resettlement scheme, and turned native property into 30 parks.

“I copied every idea in StevensonHamilton’s book South African Eden,” which lays out his system, he reported.

The Mail Mau model for genocideFrom 1952 to 1960, the British colonial authorities in Kenya, led by park warden Colonel Cowie, oversaw a state of emergency allegedly dedicated to combating a native revolution.

The methods employed against the Kenyan people under the guise of combating this alleged revolution became the model for all subsequent British efforts to destabilize the continent, and, as in Kenya, these destabilization efforts continue to be run out of the game parks.

The supposed focus of this Kenyan revolutionary conspiracy was the Mau Mau, an alleged secret society within the Kikuyu tribe, the largest and then dominant tribe of the colony.

The existence of the Mau Mau had been discovered by anthropologist and British agent Louis Leakey. As far back as the 1930s, Leakey ad done a 1 million-word study of the Kikuyu for British intelligence.

Allegedly to combat this conspiracy, the colonial authorities forced the mass resettlement of Kikuyu and other peoples from their lands and, in their efforts to crush the conspiracy, burnt down whole forests. This assault was largely led by the paramilitary personnel of the game park system established by Cowie.

The Mau Mau conspiracy proved to be a strange one.

Whereas only 22 whites were killed in the insurrection, an estimated 18-30,000 natives were killed, primarily in fighting among Kikuyu factions and with other tribes. Agriculture in the white regions was untouched, and the Mau Mau failed to even attack the vulnerable transportation network or any key facility in the cities.

Col. Frank Kitson, in his 1960 book Gangs and Counter-gangs, revealed that the British were leading large-scale Mau Mau units, and that many (if not all) Mau Mau units were synthetically created by the colonial authorities. Through orchestrating violence between their “gangs” and “counter-gangs,” the British ensured that only native slaughter, and not revolution, would result.

The Mau Mau gangs and counter-gangs were directed by Gen. Sir George Erskine, who had been responsible for civilian food distribution in occupied postwar Germany. Erskine was aided by Colonel Cowie, the manager of the parks system, and Bill Woodley, his intelligence chief who largely developed the gang-countergang doctrine described by Kit-son and later systematically applied throughout Africa.

Cowie, Woodley, and Leakey were veterans of the World War II Kenya regiment, whose top intelligence officer, Charles Pittman, was the chief warden of the Ugandan park system.

The Kenyan regiment was an elite unit within the British Commonwealth Armies in Africa, commanded by Gen. Jan Smuts, who was also the President of the British Union of South Africa. Smuts had once called for creating a single park system stretching from Kenya to South Africa.

Several of Woodley’s subordinates later found work in Kenya’s game parks after the emergency, including Stan Bleazard, who took over the Marsabit National Reserve, and Maj. Temple Boreham, who became chief warden at Masai Mara park. David Sheldrick, a former Kenyan regiment intelligence officer who had served directly under Pittman, took over “anti-poaching” operations in Tsavo elephant park.

Woodley himself became chief warden at Aberdares Mountain park, while Cowie remained in charge of the entire Kenya park system until the 1960s.

Guerrillas in the mistIn the 1960s, the British initiated their “winds of change” policy, whereby the peoples of Africa achieved nominal independence.

“The wind of change is blowing throughout the continent,” visiting Prime Minister Harold Macmillan said in Cape Town, South Africa in 1960. “Whether we like it or not this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. Our national policies must take account of it.”

Within five years, most of British Africa was nominally decolonized, and an often bewildered native comprador class was elevated to become the new governing elite.

But while the British flag was lowered in one colony after another, much of the old colonial apparatus remained, with key posts in the ministries continuing to be staffed by British nationals.

Nowhere was this more evident than in the parks system, which, by the time of independence, locked up upwards of 20% of the African colonies’ lands. The chief game wardens, park police chiefs, and the parks department staff largely continued to be British nationals.

Moreover, in a malicious innovation, increasingly large numbers of these parks, and in some cases the entire parks system, were put under the control of private non-governmental organizations, managed by international boards of trustees outside the oversight of the government.

Today, the parks systems of Kenya, Tanzania, and Zaire are privately managed by international boards of trustees. Until 1992, Louis Leakey’s son, Richard Leakey, was the chairman of the private “Kenya Wildlife Services” which runs Kenya’s parks.

When Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere proclaimed in his 1961 “Arusha Declaration” that the peoples of Africa would preserve the national parks bequeathed to them in perpetuity, he was admitting that the existence of these colonial enclaves would go unchallenged. Some 40%. of the land area of Tanzania today is locked up in its national park system, administered by the “Tanzania National Parks” nongovernmental organization.

These parks, following the Mau Mau precedent, continue to be the headquarters, training sites, and safe havens of the gang-counter-gangs. On the one hand, these parks have been the centers of nominally “anti-western” Warsaw Pact-linked subversion targeting white minority or colonial rule.

On the other hand, they have been the center of “pro-western” efforts to overthrow alleged Soviet client states radiating revolution throughout the continent.

For example:

Rhodesia-Zimbabwe

Beginning in 1961, the Zimbabwe Peoples Union (ZAPU), and two years later, the rival Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), conducted a guerrilla war to overthrow the white minority-ruled Rhodesian regime. The Rhodesian effort to crush the insurgency was carried out by the Rhodesian Army, and its irregular guerrilla formation, the Selous Scouts.

ZANU and ZAPU cadre were trained by Russian KGB instructors at the British-created Queen Elizabeth park and Gorilla park in Uganda. ZAPU was also trained by Chinese military instructors at the Serengeti and Ruana national parks of Tanzania.

The ZANU and ZAPU forward bases of operation against Rhodesia were in Zambia, just outside the Mosipa-Tunya park, and also in the Lower Zambezi park.

MAP 5
East African protected areas and insurgency
* See page 24 for definitions of protected areas and sources.

KEY TO MAP 5East African protected areas

Uganda/Sudan:

The only remaining stronghold of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) in Sudan is in the town of Nimuli, on the border with Uganda. This stronghold is supplied out of adjacent Nimuli national park 1 on the Sudanese border with Uganda. It is also supplied out of the Kidepo valley national park 2 in nearby northern Uganda. Kidepo park is also the SPLA command and training center. Ugandan army personnel often serve as officers of the SPLA.

Since at least the 1960s, several Uganda governments have used Kidepo park as a base for subversive operations in southern Sudan.

The park was created in 1962, over the protests of local conservationists who argued that the siting of the park was unreasonable; some claim that the only reason the park was created was to aid British subversion of Sudan which became independent in 1956. World Wildlife Fund founder Peter Scott was also the long-time chairman of the Ugandan National Parks department.

Uganda and Zaire:

During the late 1960s and 1970s, the Soviet KGB trained various of the “liberation movements” of southern Africa in national parks in Uganda and Zaire. Among the movements were Zimbabwe People’s Union (ZAPU), and it split-away, the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU); the South African National Congress (ANC), and its split-away, the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC).

The parks used for Soviet training were part of the complex of contiguous national parks in western Uganda and eastern Zaire including the Virunga park in Zaire 3, the Queen Elizabeth park complex 4 in Uganda, and the nearby Gorilla park 5 in Uganda – parks which were later used in the Uganda invasion of Rwanda in 1990 and 1994.

Tanzania:

The Chinese military carried out extensive terrorist training projects in Tanzania in the 1960s and 70s, including training of the ZAPU, ANC, and PAC. Training was conducted in the British-administered Serengeti National Park, particularly in the Ngorongoro Crater area 6 which is also a major site of World Wildlife Fund operations. These same groups were also trained at the British-administered Ruana National Park 8.

Kenya:

The Rhodesian, and then South African-based, Mozambique National Resistance (known as Renamo) had rest and training camps in the Galana area which abuts Tsavo park 7. Renamo had originally been created by the Rhodesian intelligence service, after Portugal achieved its independence.

A waterhole at Kruger National Park in South Africa.

The park is the size of the state of Massachusetts;

in 1902, it was brutally cleared of its non-white inhabitants to turn it into a game preserve for the oligarchy.

That policy is being continued by Prince Philip’s “conservation”- groups today.

The decades-long President of Zambia, Kenneth Kaunda, has been one of the more important British agents in southern Africa. The Selous Scouts, the Rhodesian opponents of ZANU and ZAPU, were mustered by the chief ecologist of the Rhodesian park system.

In 1980, ZANU chief Robert Mugabe became head of state of the newly created Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia). But even after black majority rule was established, the civil war continued. The fleeing Rhodesian elite largely emigrated to neighboring South Africa.

The Mozambique National Resistance (Renamo), which had earlier been created by Rhodesian intelligence to destabilize Mozambique after its independence from Portugal, was now deployed against Zimbabwe. The headquarters of Renamo is one mile from South Africa’s Kruger park; it was trained in South African regional parks in Natal, and in the parks of the nearby KaNgwane homeland.

In 1984, the Zimbabwe Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management began an anti-poaching campaign with WWF support, which has killed at least 145 “poachers” since that time.

At least some of these poachers are said to have been leaders of the rival African National Congress military wing.

Angola

In 1956, the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) was formed to overthrow Portuguese colonial rule. In 1966, its rival, the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), was also formed.

A waterhole at Kruger National Park in South Africa. The park is the size of the state of Massachusetts; in 1902, it was brutally cleared of its non-white inhabitants to turn it into a game preserve for the oligarchy. That policy is being continued by Prince Philip’s “conservation”- groups today.

A civil war against foreign rule began. Following the evacuation of Portuguese forces in 1975, the conflict continued, but this time between the new MPLA government and UNITA.

The civil war continued for another 17 years.

The MPLA and UNITA were headquartered in the West Zambezi game management area in Kaunda’s Zambia during the period of Portuguese Angolan rule.

After the MPLA took over the Angolan government, UNITA continued to be based in the same park. Meanwhile, Cuban troops were invited into Angola to defend Angola from UNITA.

These Cuban troops, and the MPLA, were trained by the East German Stasi at Bicuan and Mupa national parks. (The West German Baader-Meinhof gang was also trained in the same parks.)

Mozambique

The Mozambique Liberation Front (Frelimo) was formed in 1962 to overthrow Portuguese rule in Mozambique.

It was headquartered in Luana and West Petauke national parks in Zambia; it also received training from Russian instructors in the park systems of Uganda. In 1975, the Portuguese left and Frelimo formed a government. But the civil war continued, this time under the guise of a struggle between the Frelimo government and Renamo, now based in South Africa’s Kruger park.

Reportedly, at least one of the major factions of Renamo has been trained by WWF personnel with the aid of British Special Air Services founder Col. David Stirling, who had been a close associate of Mau Mau controller and Kenyan Parks department director Col. Mervyn Cowie since the 1940s.

The oligarchs’ real game is killing animals and killing peopleby Allen Douglas

“Crack! The rifle shot hits its target, and a mother rhino dies. Its little calf, now abandoned, is also condemned to death. As another of our endangered species is pushed nearer to extinction, the poachers’ blood-lust grows.”

– World Wildlife Fund circular of July 17, 1987 condemning the “proud men of the Middle East” for their “criminal ignorant waste” of the rhino, because they use its carved horn as handles for their ceremonial knives.

In January 1961, a few months before he would launch the new “Noah’s Ark,” the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to save the world’s endangered animal species, Prince Philip accompanied Queen Elizabeth on a royal tour of India.

Among the attractions that one of his hosts, a local Rajah in Jaipur, put on for the royal party was a tiger hunt. From a platform high in the trees out of all danger, Philip shot one of the famed Indian tigers, which had been lured by the tethered goats which the rajah had staked out.

The photo of Philip standing proudly by his victim, nearly 10 feet long from nose to tail, caused a worldwide outcry.

Philip, president of the World Wildlife Fund, on the left,

looking after a tiger just killed.

Shaken, the royal consort continued his tour, arriving in Kathmandu with a conspicuous bandage on his trigger finger, explaining that an injury would prevent his participation in the king’s “traditional hunt,” which he would, nevertheless, accompany.

Philip and Elizabeth rode perched atop some of the 300 elephants which were used to flush the game, as the Queen whirred away with her camera. Several tigers were killed that day, none officially attributed to Philip. Nor did Philip receive official credit for another animal killed that day, an exceedingly rare Indian rhinoceros. Only 250 were then left in the world, after British tea planters had finished slaughtering them to make way for their crop.

As the elephants lumbered on, a female rhino with an infant calf became trapped within their closing circle. One of the royal party, Lord Alex Douglas-Home, known as one of the finest shots in England, fired near the animal in an attempt to scare it away.

But the rhino blundered on, into Philip’s path.

“To everyone’s horror, Philip shot it,” Ian MacPhail, the WWF’s first international appeals director, later told a British film crew.

The dead rhino’s terrified calf escaped by darting away through the elephants’ legs.

Said MacPhail,

“It must have died as well. It was far too young to have managed on its own.”

The whole business was covered up, MacPhail explained, for plans were already afoot to found the World Wildlife Fund.

“I was a party to the cover-up,” he told the film crew in 1990, believing that the greater good was to save various animal species as a whole.

Reflecting on the WWF’s utter failure to do so over the three previous decades, he concluded:

“But with a heavy heart I have to report to you that I was wrong. The rhino, the elephant, and the panda missed the boat, and the new Noah’s Ark sailed on without them.”

Philip’s personal behavior has characterized that of his World Wildlife Fund as a whole.

From 1961 until the present, the WWF has presided over, and in many cases organized and financed, including the purchase of weapons, the systematic slaughter and near extinction of the most prominent species under its self-appointed control. And, under cover of concern for the animals, it used substantial portions of the several hundred million dollars it has raised to date, to finance the slaughter of human beings, in particular in sub-Saharan Africa.

In the account to follow, it must be understood that the WWF was, from the outset, the personal fiefdom of Philip, who oversaw its operations almost down to the smallest detail.

Sir Peter Scott, a WWF founder and longtime chairman, explained to EIR in an interview conducted in the early 1980s why Prince Bernhard, rather than Philip, became the WWFInternational’s first president:

“When we started WWF, a British president would have looked too colonial.”

But, Scott emphasized, it was Philip, not his friend Prince Bernhard, who was the driving force – testimony echoed by others in the WWF hierarchy.

Longtime Director General Charles de Haes told a journalist,

“Prince Philip is brilliant, he has a remarkable knowledge. He’s been involved with WWF since its founding in 1961. He’s incredibly active. He chairs all the executive committee meetings. He’s involved right down to every aspect of policy.”

Added the WWF’s Dr. Anne Schiotz,

“The Duke of Edinburgh devotes perhaps one-fourth of his time to the WWF – he is remarkable.”

The WWF is best-known for its efforts to conserve four animal species, all of which were in vastly better condition in 1961 than they are today. Two of these, the panda and the African black rhinoceros, are near extinction, andtwoothers, the African elephant and the Indian tiger, are rapidly heading in that direction.

At numerous times during the past 33 years, the WWF has been made aware, often through reports it has itself commissioned, of the approaching extinction of various species. In each case, it has suppressed, sometimes brutally so, the information.

Three of the more notorious instances include:

The “Black Ebur Report“

In 1972, WWF founder Sir Peter Scott commissioned a Nairobi-based big game hunter, Ian Parker, to look into the lucrative and burgeoning illegal trade in animal products such as elephant tusks and rhino horn.

Among other things, Parker found that the family of Kenyan President Jomo Kenyatta were notorious traders in illegal products, and that his daughter Margaret was the secretary of a company which sold rhino horns and elephant tusks to the Far East, a trade which had probably done more to decimate Kenya’s large animals than any other single cause. Parker also named many of Kenya’s most prominent “conservationists” as poachers.

Within hours of turning his report over to Scott, Parker was picked up, taken to the Kenyan Special Branch’s notorious Langatta Road station, beaten for three days and told to shut up about what he had written or his wife would be killed.

The report, then the most comprehensive inquiry into African wildlife slaughter ever conducted, remained suppressed until 17 years later, when Irish filmmaker Kevin Dowling unearthed it to use for his scathing expose of the WWF, “Tenpence in the Panda,” for Britain’s Independent Television network.

At almost the same time that Parker was being beaten, then WWF-International President Prince Bernhard bestowed on Kenyatta his specially created “Order of the Golden Ark,” for “saving the rhino.” Bernhard was well aware that vast numbers of animals had disappeared during Kenyatta’s tenure, because he had received – even signed for – a copy of the Black Ebur Report.

When word leaked out that Bernhard possessed this devastating report, WWF Director General de Haes claimed that this was not a WWF corporate affair, that it was merely Bernhard’s “private investigation.”

The Phillipson Report

In late 1989, Oxford professor John Phillipson completed his internal audit, commissioned by the WWF, of the organization’s effectiveness.

Phillipson’s 252-page report, excerpts of which are made public here for the first time, was a scathing indictment of WWF’s outrageous incompetence and blundering, or worse. It concluded that what the WWF had adopted as its special mission – saving individual species – was what it was least good at.

Upon receiving a copy of the report, Philip immediately sent a secret memo to Director General de Haes, directing that Phillipson be urged to tone down his findings or, failing that, that the report’s key findings be suppressed.

Operation Lock

Under this code name, in 1987, the WWF authorized a lavishly funded “emergency effort to save the rhino.” The premise of this extremely secret operation was to organize infiltration, from a base in South Africa, of the continent’s wildlife smuggling rings in order to stop the animal slaughter. By all accounts, a vast amount of information was gathered. Once again, nothing was done with it, except to suppress it.

Of course, as many conservationists noted at the time, trying to stop wildlife poaching “at the source” was a ridiculous proposition, akin to trying to stop the world’s drug trade by rounding up local pushers, while leaving the bankers who finance the trade and launder its hundreds of billions, untouched.

The center of trade in illegal wildlife products was, as with the drag trade, the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong.

Saving the animals?Let us review some of the WWF’s most highly publicized, as well as lucrative, efforts to save individual species.

Counter posing these efforts by what might seem at first to be merely a gang that can’t shoot straight, to the most sensitive mission WWF has ever launched, Operation Lock, lays bare WWF’s true purpose.

The panda

At the time of its formation in November 1961, the WWF proclaimed that it had the answer to what it claimed was the threatened extinction of many species: “There is only one hope for them symbolized by the loveable giant panda. He was saved from extinction because man acted in time. Now the panda is the emblem of a world crusade to beat the 20th century death flood – the World Wildlife Fund.” , .

The WWF claimed that “scientific breeding” had saved the panda, an approach which now must be applied to all other species. After raising money off the symbolism of the cuddly mammal for 23 years, the. WWF suddenly discovered that it, too, was an endangered species. In 1987, Philip launched a new appeal for still more millions to “save the panda.”

The WWF’s efforts, which included “relocating” thousands of poor Chinese peasants out of their homes in the pandas’ “range,” and building an expensive laboratory in an attempt to breed pandas, were appraised by consultant Phillipson.

“despite a staff of 43 (23 allegedly science-trained), panda breeding has not been a success and research output negligible…. The laboratories, equipped at a cost to WWF of SFr 0.53 million, are essentially non-functional. .. . A lack of proper advice, inadequately trained staff, and poor direction have resulted in a’moribund’laboratory…. The obvious conclusion must be that WWF has not been effective or efficient in safeguarding its massive investment…. WWF subscribers would be dismayed to learn that the capital input has been virtually written off.”

Finally, wrote Phillipson,

“It must be accepted that WWF activities in China are largely in disarray…. The policy of widening WWF involvement to cover other interests has, in my opinion, been counterproductive and, in view of the virtual cessation of support for all forms of panda research, amounts to an abrogation of responsibility for the much publicized ‘Panda Program.’ “

After 30 years of raising money off the animal, Prince Philip was forced to admit in 1990 that the panda was “probably doomed.”

The elephant

A study by noted animal population ecologist E. Caughey in 1988 concluded that there were 3 million elephants in Africa in the early 1950s. By all accounts, there was little or no decline in elephant numbers during the colonial period, that is, approximately up to the “Winds of Change” policy enunciated by British Prime Minister Harold MacMillan in 1960, almost contemporaneous with the founding of the WWF.

The first systematic field survey, done in 1976 by the Scottish Kenya-based conservationist Iain Douglas-Hamilton, found 1.3 million elephants alive at the time.

Throughout the 1970s and most of the 1980s, the WWF stoutly maintained that there was no “elephant crisis,” fighting the efforts of various conservationists to ban trading of the animals’ valuable ivory. By the time the “Year of the Elephant” was declared in 1988-89, the WWF maintained that there were 750,000 left, a number that mounting evidence forced them to revise downward to 650,000.

However, a survey done in 1988 by the former WWF president in France, Pierre Pfeffer, who was forced off the board, found that there were only 400,000 left. That number has dropped still further, till various experts interviewed in the 1989 British film “The Elephant Man,” spoke of the great beast’s looming extinction.

Once again, the WWF had done its bit. In 1963, WWF-International Chairman Peter Scott, in a report to the Ugandan Parks Board, recommended the “culling” of 2,500 elephants. The job was contracted to game hunter Ian Parker, who massacred 4,000 hippos while he was at it.

Scott had recommended the slaughter on the malthusian premise that “overpopulation” required the killing of many individuals in order to “save the species.” In reality, as it later emerged, Scott wanted to create a valuable mahogany plantation in the forests where the elephants fed, and they were in the way.

While Parker shot the elephants, WWF directors made a tidy profit from the business. Scott tipped off fellow WWF founder and Prince Philip’s Extra Equerry, Lord Aubrey Buxton, that the slaughters were to happen. Buxton, chairman of Survival Anglia, makers of some of the world’s leading “nature documentaries,” and on whose board Scott also sat, arranged to film the slaughter.

In the early 1970s, the bloody Ugandan dictator Idi Amin was installed in power by British intelligence, and maintained there until 1979. The British government watched benignly as Amin slaughtered thousands and thousands more elephants.

Today, there are fewer elephants left in Uganda than Scott had ordered Parker to kill in one drive.

In 1975, the African Wildlife Leadership Foundation, founded by U.S. WWF President Russell Train, contracted with Parker to kill virtually all the elephants in Rwanda, on the basis that the Rwandans could not protect both the mountain gorilla and the elephant, so the elephant had to go.

One of gorilla expert Diane Fossey‘s assistants later charged that the elephants had been killed because the land they lived on was ideal for the production of pyrethrum, a natural “nonpolluting” insecticide.

Within a few years, an artificial substitute for pyrethrum was found and production collapsed.

Now cleared of trees, the slopes where the elephants had lived lost their topsoil through erosion, while the rivers backed up with sediment and flooded.

The slaughter continued
In 1986, former Rhodesian bush fighter Clem Coetzee of Zimbabwe was awarded the WWF Conservation Award by Director General de Haes for overseeing a campaign in which 44,000 elephants were killed.

This was necessary, said the WWF, “to protect the environment” of Zimbabwe’s “overcrowded” national parks. De Haes lauded Coetzee’s work as “exemplary and a model for all Africa.”

While other conservation groups worldwide were screaming about the plight of the elephant and calling for an ivory trade ban, the WWF was still maintaining things were fine.

When the WWF belatedly rang the alarm bells in 1989, the “Year of the Elephant,” their assistance to the elephants of Uganda was most curious. With funds raised through tear-jerking campaigns “to save Nell the elephant,” the WWF set up a camp to rescue the beleaguered behemoths, into which the standard extensive paramilitary gear was flown.

This camp was near the Mountains on the Moon on the Rwandan border, despite the fact that virtually all of Uganda’s elephants were in Murchison Park, nearly 1,000 miles away.

But it was from precisely this area that the Rwandan Patriotic Front was to invade Rwanda a short time later.

The black rhino

The WWF was launched in London with a special “shock edition” of the Daily Mirror on Oct. 6, 1961. Virtually the entire front page of the newspaper was given over to a banner headline, “Doomed – by Man’s Folly, Greed and Neglect,” and to a giant picture of a black rhinoceros.

Only 100,000 “short-sighted and likeably ugly rhinos” like Gertie, as she was christened, who stood there with one of her infant calves at her foot, survived in the wild, Mirror readers were told. And they were dwindling fast. If the rhino were to be “saved” in the troubled times ahead, the whole African herd would have to be “scientifically managed.”

Support from the Mirror’s working-class readership poured in.

Widows sent their pension money, and children their pennies saved up for school. In all, £45,000 was collected, a huge sum for the time. The WWF thus obtained “a basis for its financial security,” and it was off and running. Yet it spent virtually nothing on saving rhinos until almost 10 years later, and sponsored only two rhino projects in its first two decades!

Behind its trumpet blare of concern for the rhino, the WWF had by 1980 spent only 118,533 tax-sheltered Swiss francs, out of more than $110 million raised, to “save the wild black rhino,” whose population in the meantime had declined by 95.5%. And when the WWF finally did sponsor “rhino projects,” the rhinos invariably died, or at best were sent off to zoos or, more frequently, private game farms.

Today the black rhino is virtually extinct in the wild.

Exemplary of the WWF’s work for the “likeably ugly beasts,” is a sampling of the rhino projects scathingly criticized by the Phillipson report, chronicled below.

In 1965, a Kenyan resident gave the WWF SFr 36,300 to move six white rhino from Natal, South Africa to Meru Game Reserve in Kenya, which, according to the WWF Yearbook 1965-67 “was felt to contain the right sort of habitat.”

From 1961 until the present, the
WWF has presided over, and in
many cases organized and financed,
the systematic slaughter and near
extinction of the most prominent
species under its self-appointed
control. And, under cover of concern for the animals, it used substantial
portions of the several hundred
million dollars it has raised to
date, to finance the slaughter of
human beings.

Said Phillipson:

“The project was ill-conceived and indefensible in conservation terms; the Southern White Rhino has never, at least in historic times, occurred in Kenya: More over, there is no evidence that the Northern White Rhino ever roamed the lands which now constitute the 87,044 hectare Meru National Park.

The assumption must be that in the mid 1960s WWF was either scientifically incompetent, hungry for publicity, greedy for money, or unduly influenced by scientifically naive persons of stature.”

Phillipson concluded,

“The program came to an abrupt end in November 1988, perhaps mercifully in that it removed a constant source of embarrassment. Insurgent Somali poachers shot all the remaining white rhino in an act of defiance, an unfortunate end for the rhino but no doubt a welcome relief for concerned conservationists. Project 0195 is not a project that WWF should look back on with any pride.”

Nor was Project 917, in which 85 “surplus rhino” from Natal were shipped into Mozambique; all of them died. Nor was the Lake Nakuru National Park rhino project in Kenya.

Half of all the money the WWF spent on Kenya has gone into what it calls “the protected area management” of this park.

Originally set up as a bird park, with hundreds of thousands of flamingos and many other varieties of tropical birds breeding on the lake and its environs, WWF decided by the late 1980s to turn it into a rhino park in which to place the last of the Kenyan rhinos. Seventeen black rhino were translocated, and penned in behind an electric fence. Soon it became obvious that the project was a disaster.

As Phillipson remarked with biting irony:

“The logic behind the choice of Nakuru as a site for the release of black rhinos remains something of a mystery. About one-third of the park is a lake and another third is open grassland, quite unsuitable in the normal course of events, as rhino habitat….

Nakuru was a daft place. What price walking safaris for birdwatchers now that there might be a rhino around the next bush? The park was, after all, created for the birds.”

WWF Director General de Haes was notorious among his staff for his reported statement that he “couldn’t give a continental f***” about the rhino. But if the WWF has not been saving endangered species, as it clearly has not, then on what has it been spending its hundreds of millions of dollars?

A look at the WWF’s “Operation Stronghold,” and its sister, “Operation Lock,” two more “save the rhino” gambits, gives the answer.

Operation Stronghold
Funded with 1 million Swiss francs and coordinated with Operation Lock, Stronghold was nominally to enable the Zimbabwe Department of National Parksand Wildlife Management to save the 700 black rhino left in the Zambezi Valley, the last major population in the wild in Africa.

Chief Game Ranger Glen Tatham toured the United States, announcing that, with WWF’s help, he and his rangers “were going to war” against the poachers allegedly coming over the border from Zambia.

On Nov. 10, 1988, Tatham and two of his assistants were brought before a court in Zimbabwe and charged with murder. It was alleged that they had set up a sting operation against poachers, who, when they approached the meeting place, had been shot dead from ambush without warning by the accused. It soon emerged in a parliamentary debate that Tatham and his men had killed 70 poachers since early 1987.

A law was rushed through parliament, the Protection of Wildlife (Indemnity) Act, which gave game guards immunity from civil and criminal prosecution for killings or woundings carried out in the course of their duties.

Ten parliamentarians opposed the bill on the grounds that it would “legalize murder.”

As one of them, Mica Bhebe, put it,

“We are giving people a blank check to kill people.”

Official figures show that between July 1984 and September 1991, some 145 “poachers” were killed.

Of the 84 killed in the Zambezi Valley, most were shot from a helicopter paid for by WWF and manned by WWF contract employees. According to the Game Department’s figures, of the 228 people killed or taken prisoner, only 107 guns were recovered.

Given that another 202 individuals were recorded as having fled, some badly injured, some of whom would have lost or been unable to carry away their weapons, this means that Tatham et al. failed to recover weapons from three-quarters of those killed, taken prisoner, or driven away. This raises the question of whether those targeted by the guards were in fact armed poachers at all.

According to sources interviewed by the British film crew which made Ten Pence in the Panda, several of the dead were in fact associated with the military wing of the African National Congress.

And what happened to the rhino?
From the moment that the project was agreed to in February 1987, the WWF’s aim had been “to translocate rhinos captured in the valley to safer areas elsewhere.”

Drugged and immobilized, the rhinos were shipped off to privately owned game farms in Zimbabwe, elsewhere in Africa, and to the United States and Australia. In other words, the WWF paid to slaughter human beings, in order to destroy the last living rhino herd in the world. The reason for the “relocation” became quickly clear – aside from the immense profits it generated for private, WWF-associated interests.

It emerged that the International Monetary Fund (IMF), then dictating a “restructuring” of Zimbabwe’s economy, had mandated that a beef ranching business be set up in the Zambezi Valley, in the rhino range, to provide beef to the European Commission.

After the rhino had been “relocated,” squads of animal exterminators moved into the valley and killed scores of elephants and 5,000 buffalo to make way for the IMF-mandated beef ranch, which soon collapsed into bankruptcy, leaving large debts and no rhinos.

Operation Lock
In late 1989 and early 1990, a scandal broke into the British and European press which threatened to cause immense damage to the green oligarchs at WWF.

One of WWF’s most secretive operations, code-named “Operation Lock,” ostensibly an aggressive attempt to save the endangered rhino by sending an elite squad of British Special Air Services (SAS) operatives into southern Africa to penetrate, expose, and neutralize the illegal wildlife smuggling cartels, had gone badly awry.

A million pounds sterling had disappeared, and it appeared that the SAS team had started dealing in the very products, in particular rhino horn and ivory, which it had been sent to stop. There were also, as in Operation Stronghold, whispers of rising death tolls of “poachers.”

WWF hastily prepared its own version of the matter. In 1986, they said, Prince Bernhard and the new head of the WWF’s Africa Program, John Hanks, became alarmed while on a tour of Africa, at the rapidly dwindling rhino numbers. The two cooked up the notion of sending a team of elite trained sabotage experts and killers, SAS men, to Africa to deal with the problem by unorthodox means.

Prince Bernhard, unbeknownst to WWF, put the £500,000 or more he received from the sale of a valuable painting into the project, and off it went. It was completely secret, so the story goes, from the WWF headquarters in Gland, Switzerland, even though Bernhard was at the time president of the Netherlands WWF and two other national WWF organizations.

The SAS team, which had been organized into a company named KAS Enterprises Ltd. for the purpose, was led by Col. David Stirling, the legendary founder of Britain’s SAS regiments during World War II, and the veteran of dozens, if not hundreds of special operations all over the Mideast and Africa in the postwar period.

Stirling chose the intials to echo those of his earlier Capricorn Africa Society (CAS), whose purpose had been to “preserve apartheid in a sugar coating,” in the words of Kenya governor Sir Philip Kerr.

Capricorn’s treasurer had been Mervyn Cowie, the architect of the Kenyan Park system and controller of the Mau Mau, while its chief propagandist was Elspeth Huxley, the wife of Julian Huxley’ s cousin Gervas.

Curiously, the most detailed revelations about Operation Lock, which obviously relied on internal WWF documents, came from the newsletter Africa Confidential, widely regarded in Africa and elsewhere as an MI-5 asset, and which had been founded in Stirling’s flat in London.

The issue, as defined by Africa Confidential and its editor, who left the newsletter at this time and authored a series of exposes on Operation Lock in the British and Dutch press, became:

Who in the WWF bureaucracy knew about this crazy, if deadly, scheme and when?

Was this another “offline” operation by Bernhard, as the “Black Ebur Report” supposedly had been, or was this official WWF policy?

It soon emerged, contrary to the lies that the WWF leadership and its Director General de Haes spread, that the entire operation from the beginning was official policy, and that a WWF project description – later called a “mistake” – explicitly called for the purchase of arms.

Files existed in the Gland international office titled “Anti-Poaching Units,” which operations had indeed been funded by WWF.

Though scandalous, the various exposes missed the point of Operation Lock.

First, as anyone familiar with Africa’s parks is well aware, the main “poachers” are usually the guards themselves, often financed and armed by the WWF. Second, the man whom Bernhard (again, according to the received version of events) approached to carry out this delicate “save the rhino” work, was a man who had not only founded the SAS and who had extensive covert operations experience in Africa, but who had been the “Gold Stick” at the coronation of Elizabeth II as queen in 1952.

Though an Anglo-Catholic educated at the Benedictine monastery at Ampleforth contemporaneously with Lord Buxton, Philip’s Extra Equerry, and with others of the WWF crowd, Stirling was chosen for the extraordinary honor, coveted among all British peerage,

Special Offprint 37 to be the personal defender of the body of the queen, the head of the Protestant Church of England. And, as do all the men of SAS as well as MI-5, MI-6, and the Life Guards, he had sworn his loyalty not to the British state, but to the person of the monarch.

Throughout the postwar period, Stirling had carried out dozens of the most sensitive political-military operations for the British Crown. A Scottish aristocrat, he was close personally to the Queen Mother, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, herself of the very cream of the Scottish aristocracy. The aging Stirling chose as the operational officer for his KAS company, Lt. Col. Ian Crooke. Crooke was also a legend.

Decorated with the rarefied Distinguished Service Order for his service during the Falklands campaign, he was the hooded “man on the balcony” who commanded the SAS team which stormed the Iranian Embassy in London in May 1980, and whose picture was flashed round the world. His brother Alastair was a British consular official in Islamabad, Pakistan, reportedly in charge of arming the Afghan mujahideen.

Crooke’s number two man in Operation Lock, Nish Bruce, was reportedly the most highly decorated British soldier in the Falklands fighting. (Curiously, WWF founder Lord Buxton’s daughter was in the Falkland Islands “birdwatching” just as the fighting broke out.) Others on the team had extensive service in Northern Ireland, and were specialists in hunting down IRA men.

Thus the unit pulled together to “stop poaching” comprised some of the very elite of the British special forces.

Crooke was the head at the time of the 23rd SAS Regiment, the part-time SAS unit which is used, as are dozens of “private” security firms in London such as Stirling’s, for operations sanctioned by Her Majesty’s Government, but ones which “HMG” prefers to deny.

That Operation Lock was official government policy is obvious:

The chain of command in the WWF led to Prince Philip, the royal consort, and Stirling even admitted to the press that he was in close contact with the British Ministries of Defense and Foreign Affairs.

One SAS member familiar with Operation Lock reported that there were regular toasts to the Queen Mother in SAS’s favorite pub, while another, himself a Lock participant, stated in writing that among Lock’s consortium of financial backers was the Queen Mother.

Another subscriber to Lock was Laurens van der Post, the tutor to Prince Charles and at the time Mrs. Thatcher’s chief adviser on Africa policy.

What was KAS really?Stirling was a curious choice to save Africa’s wildlife.

He was very close to, among other well-known traffickers in wildlife, the Unita organization of Jonas Savimbi, who in 1988 admitted that his men had killed some 100,000 elephants in order to finance their war against the MPLA government in Luanda.

Furthermore, internal KAS documents showed that Stirling’s company planned to make a profit out of trading in the very ivory, rhino horn, etc. which they had ostensibly been sent to Africa to stop.

Under Crook’s command, 25 SAS veterans set up a fortified headquarters in Pretoria with sophisticated computer equipment and imported (illegally, due to the embargo then on against South Africa) large amounts of highly sophisticated weaponry. But, if they weren’t saving the rhinos, what were they doing?

Zimbabwean Minister for National Security Sydney Sekerayami had an idea.

According to the Dutch paper de Volkrants of Aug. 24, 1991, he,

“plainly stated in public that he suspected KAS of being a cover for the destabilization of southern Africa.”

Numerous other governments, including wildlife officials in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia were suspicious of the Lock men, and refused to work with them.

Rowan Martin, director of research in Zimbabwe’s wildlife department, declined to cooperate with Crooke, who flew from Johannesburg to see him because Crooke was “vague about his sponsors and the objectives of his mission.”

It also seemed odd to Martin that,

“they seemed more interested in military technology than wildlife… They hinted at some pretty irregular methods.”

South African Military Intelligence, evaluating the “antipoachers” as obviously an elite British intelligence unit, sent their own man in to infiltrate the Lock crew.

Crooke managed to work out liaisons with Namibia and Mozambique, and with elements of the South African special forces and intelligence community. Then in a war against the African National Congress (ANC), South West African People’s Organization (SWAPO), and the majority-ruled front-line states, some South Africans viewed the paramilitary training capabilities of the British as an asset.

From an operational headquarters in Bophuthatswana’s Pilanesberg Park, and in numerous other parks such as Etosha in Namibia and in the game parks in the KaNgwana homeland on the South Africa-Mozambique border, the KAS crew turned out “anti-poaching units.”

One such unit which Crooke’ s men trained, and the political circumstances in which it operated, is of particular interest.

The ‘third force‘From before Nelson Mandela’s release in 1990 until the present, well over 10,000 black South Africans have been killed through black-on-black violence.

Observers have attributed much of this murder and mayhem to the agent provocateur actions of a mysterious “third force,” which is neither the ANC, nor its Zulu-based Inkatha Freedom Party rival. The third force, by attacking each of the rival groups in turn – which then blame each other – keeps the deadly violence going. Such activity must be gridded against the work of Crooke’s unit in Namibia.

After being taken from the Germans following World War I, South West Africa became a protectorate of South Africa.

In the 1980s, as the SWAPO guerilla force of Sam Nujoma waged war against the South African-backed, white-dominated government of the country, South African special forces trained the notorious “Koevoet,” Afrikaans for “crowbar,” black special warfare units, whose savagery was notorious. Crooke and his crew retrained the Koevoet men as “antipoaching units.”

Simultaneously, they set up liaison with the then-minuscule “stock theft unit” of the South African Police.

In late June 1992, shortly after the notorious Boipatong massacre of June 18, in which 39 were killed and many more injured by mysterious “third force” assassins, a joint task force of ANC intelligence, the Goldstone Commission (an inquiry into violence), and a special police unit raided the premises of theBritish-owned Gold Fields firm.

There, to their surprise, they discovered a “stock theft unit” of 40 men, mainly re-trained Koevoet veterans from Namibia.

According to the South African Weekly Mail of June 26-July 2, 1992,

“The African National Congress says it has witnesses who will testify before the [Goldstone] commission on the unit’s role in the Boipatong massacre.”

Gold Fields was chaired by Robin Plumbridge, an Oxford graduate and a Trustee of the South African Nature Foundation, the WWF’s South African affiliate.

As the Weekly Mail put it,

“The presence of a ‘third force’ on a British-owned mine will have major international repercussions.”

Though £1 million had been spent,

“As one of [Operation Lock’s] employees himself put it, there is no proof that the [project] ever even saved one single rhinoceros,” according to the Dutch newspaper de Volkrants.

Population controller John HanksThe story that Prince Bernhard and John Hanks ran Operation Lock as a rogue operation out of their back pockets is nonsense, but it is clear that Hanks did play a key role in the affair.

His career and specialties help shed further light on the operation. Hanks had gotten his start in the conservation business cutting up elephants in an abattoir in Zambia, where elephants were butchered to feed the workers in southern Africa’s mines. He spent some time in Rhodesia where, according to his own account, he worked for military intelligence.

In the mid-1970s, he became the chief parks officer of the National Parks Board at Pietmaritzburg in Natal.

But his overwhelming preoccupation from 1976 on, was with human population control. In numerous speeches, he railed about how “Durban will [soon] be worse than Bombay.”

The problem, he said, was that,

“African women are among the world’s most prolific breeders, with the average woman bearing 5.2 children.”

With all these mouths to feed,

“demands are being placed on our natural resources which are not sustainable and can only lead to chronic environmental degradation.”

In 1977, he called for a “national population control policy,” and the liberal use of contraception, abortion, and sterilization.

In 1979, Hanks became the first director of the Institute of Natural Resources in KwaZulu, founded with a grant from the K.E. Taeubner Management Trust, named for a member of the 1001 Club. He continued to specialize in population matters, and became an executive member of the Family Planning Association of South Africa. In 1986, he became the head of the Africa Program of the WWF.

When Operation Lock was exposed in 1990 (at least certain aspects of it), it caused a bit of a stink, and Hanks was forced to leave the WWF.

He issued a statement on Jan. 4, 1990:

“My own involvement in the project ceased when Prince Bernhard’s funds had been exhausted in late 1989. I am aware that similar operations are continuing, but I am no longer involved in any way.”

He took up the post of executive director of the WWF’s South African branch, the South African Nature Foundation, which Prince Philip called “an elegant solution” to the embarrassment of what to do with him.

However, the Dutch paper de Volksrant reported on Aug. 24, 1991,

“He still works on operations like Lock, together with some of the former British soldiers who also took part in the original project.”

“KAS should seize this opportunity to become the leading expert on all forms of anti-poaching training throughout Africa.”

The document furthermore noted that “the experience gained so far in SWA/ Namibia has proved invaluable.”

Who are the poachers?The nominal purpose of Operation Lock and Operation Stronghold was to “stop poachers.” But as the case of the 120-square-mile Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania demonstrates once again, it is usually the WWF which is paying the poachers.

In the late 1950s, WWF founder-to-be Dr. Bernard Grzimek of the Frankfurt Zoo took an animal census in the Ngorongoro Crater, claiming to find that wildlife was disappearing.

This Grzimek blamed on the Masai pastoralists, who herded their cattle across the area, but who rarely killed anything except the lions which attacked their flocks. As a result of the hysteria Grzimek and his allies kicked up, in particular around the associated Hollywood film “Serengeti Shall Not Die!” the Masai were banned from entering vast areas of the national park around the crater, their traditional territory.

In 1964, some 108 rhinos had been individually photographed and given an identity, the most carefully documented population in Africa. A WWF program was set up to “save” them.

Despite the WWF-financed game guard program, by 1981 there were only 20 left. Not one poacher had been caught by the three anti-poaching teams in years.

In that year, an eyewitness wrote to the offices of the African Wildlife Leadership Federation in Nairobi, shedding some light on the disappearing rhino herd. The WWF-financed game guards, she reported, had shot dead two large tame males and wounded a female, “all in broad daylight.”

She concluded,

“Isn’t it fairly obvious what is going on in the crater?”

The British royal family’s policy at work – mass death in Rwanda
by Linda de Hoyos

Before April, Rwanda had an approximate population of 7.2 million.

As of September, up to 1 million people have been killed inside Rwanda.

According to estimates supplied by the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), 2,576,000 people are displaced inside Rwanda, including 1.3 million in the former French Safe Zone in the southwest corner of the country. Another 2,223,000 people are refugees outside of Rwanda – 1,542,000 in Zaire, 210,000 in Burundi, 460,500 in Tanzania, and 10,500 in Uganda.

That is, 5,799,000 people, or 80.6% of the population, have been killed or uprooted.

The RPF is ruling from the capital city of Kigali over an emptied country. Water arid electricity systems are destroyed. Up to 50% of health employees and teachers have been killed. The Ugandan shilling is now the currency of choice. Food production is at 66% of the normal, with the country receiving less than 75% of its aid requirement.

Rwanda has been obliterated, torn to pieces, its traumatized and emaciated population scattered to the winds. As EIR has documented (Aug. 19, 1994), the destruction of Rwanda is the handiwork of Ugandan dictator Yoweri Museveni and Lady Lynda Chalker. The destruction of Rwanda begins not with the April 6,1994 murder of President Juvenal Habyarimana, but with the British-backed invasion of Rwanda by the top echelons of the Uganda Army in October 1990.

According to one source in Kampala, 95% of the RPF was in the Uganda Army. And Museveni’s National Resistance Army (NRA), itself trained by the British, Americans, and North Koreans since Museveni took power in 1986, is the source of supplies and money for the RPF.

The leaders of the RPF are identical to the top echelons of the Ugandan Army: Ugandan minister of state for defense was the RPF’s David Tinyefuza; Paul Kagame, current defense minister of Rwanda Under the RPF, was head of intelligence and counterintelligence in the Ugandan Army; the RPF’s Chris Bunyenyezi was the former commanding officer of the NRA’s 306th Brigade, notorious for the atrocities committed against Uganda’sTeso.

Museveni also had a hand in the Oct. 23, 1993 coup against Burundi President Melchior Ndadaye, whose election had ended 31 years of Tutsi military rule in Burundi. According to some sources, Museveni planned the coup in a meeting in Entebbe which included the RPF’s Paul Kagame.

Two coup ringleaders, Major Bucokoza and Lt. Paul Kamana, were in Kampala, openly carousing with Ugandan officers, from late October 1993 to February 1994, and, according to Burundi sources, they are both now with the RPF. The attempted coup in Burundi resulted in the murder of President Ndadaye, and the mass slaughter of up to 100,000 Hutus and Tutsis in fratricidal warfare.

Museveni is not acting on his own. His links to the British royal family run through two interlinked personages: Lady Lynda Chalker, Minister of Overseas Development and a favorite of Lady Margaret Thatcher, and Tiny Rowland, chairman of Lonrho, who reportedly introduced Chalker to the higher echelons of London society.

The on-the-ground British case officer for Museveni is reportedly one William (Mike) Pike, editor of New Vision, a daily financed by Rowland. Pike is believed to report directly to Chalker.

Chalker was the first foreigner to meet Museveni once he took power in Kampala. Museveni and Chalker have been “very luwie-duvvie,” as one British source put it.

A British East Africa expert further complained that Lady Chalker,

“spends a lot of time, a disproportionate amount of time, in the Horn of Africa and Uganda.”

Soon after the RPF victory in Rwanda, Chalker visited Uganda for a four-day tour hosted by Museveni, before tripping over to Goma, Zaire, to view the refugees.

On the latter experience, Chalker told the press,

“Of course, when one comes face to face with death… in their hundreds, or as in Goma, in their thousands, I feel it. But I don’t allow it to affect my judgment.”

Museveni, the marcher lordOn Dec. 11,1992, Africa Analysis reported that the minutes of a meeting which took place in late 1992 at the State House in Entebbe had reached Kenyan intelligence.

The minutes showed that Ugandan President Museveni was prepared to give full logistical and political support to insurgencies aimed at the governments in Rwanda, Kenya, and Sudan. Attending the meeting were Museveni, Col. John Garang of the S udan People’ s Liberation Army, unidentified commanders of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (Ugandan Army), and representatives of the armed wing of the Kenya Democratic Party opposition to Kenyan President Daniel arap Moi.

The meeting points to Museveni’s role as the British marcher lord in East and Central Africa. The immediate goal for the British royal family is to use Uganda, which was first leveled by the British-sponsored barbarian Idi Amin (1972-79) and has now become the major British financial and political outpost in the region, as the springboard for recolonization of the region.

“Museveni told the RPF commanders at the Entebbe meeting that he would do his utmost to stall the Arusha peace talks in order to buy time for them to build sufficient firepower to storm Kigali.”

That mission has now been accomplished.

On Kenya, Lady Chalker has worked to create a tribally based opposition to Moi, with the armed wings of these operations supplied by Museveni.

Chalker has repeatedly cut British aid to Kenya, and informed Moi in February 1992, in what she called,

“very frank, straight talks,” that “the only way to come to grips with the security problem in northern Kenya is to deploy troops under U.N. coordination.”

Uganda is arming the rebels in Zaire. The British are now demanding that the troops of the former Rwandan government move deeper into the interior of Zaire, away from the mass of Rwandan refugees. According to an Oct. 2 report of

U.N. Special Representative to Rwanda Shahryar Khan, this may require “an international operation under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter – which allows for use of force” – on Zairean soil.

Strongman behind the SPLA

Uganda is the major source of supply for John Garang’s SPLA. The remaining SPLA stronghold in Sudan is Nimuli, near the Ugandan border, which is supplied from the Nimuli park on the border with Sudan and Kidepo Valley park in northern Uganda.

Kidepo is also the site for SPLA training and the SPLA headquarters. According to Ugandan sources, food, gasoline, and supplies are stored for Garang at the Mbuya military barracks, and the supplies are delivered by the NRA 4th Division.

Museveni has attempted to procure sophisticated weapons for Garang. In August 1992, Museveni’s private secretary, Innocent Bisangwa-Mbuguje, and Ugandan Ambassador to the United States Stephen Kapimpina Katenta-Apuuli were arrested in Orlando, Florida, for illegally attempting to buy 400 TOW anti-tank missiles and 34 TOW launchers for $18 million. The weapons were bound for the SPLA, through the border towns of Nimule or Kaya in northern Uganda.

In spring 1994, a Nigerian commercial plane developed engine trouble at Lanark, Cyprus, while carrying missiles reportedly from Israel to Uganda.

MAP 6
Rwanda invasion routes

KEY TO MAP 6

The 1990 RPF/Ugandan army invasion of Rwanda was staged in the Gorilla park of Uganda on the border of Rwanda and Zaire 1. It proceeded through the Volcans park in Rwanda 2, directly opposite the Gorilla park in Uganda.

The Akagera park in Rwanda 3, bordering Kenya and within a few miles of the Ugandan border, was the other invasion route.

Although the 1990 invasion failed, the Uganda military and RPF continued to control large areas of the Volcans park of Rwanda, and used that park as a base for raids farther into Rwanda.

The RPF also held parts of the Virunga park in Zaire 4, which borders both the Volcans park of Rwanda and the Gorilla park of Uganda. Periodic efforts by the Rwandan military to flush out the Uganda guerrillas through shelling both parks were unsuccessful, and vehemently condemned by international conservation agencies including the World Wildlife Fund. The WWF manages the “Gorilla protection program” within the tri-border Virunga, Gorilla, and Volcans parks. The WWF program was initiated just months before the 1990 Ugandan invasion.

The Uganda/RPF invasion of April 1994 came largely through the Akagera park.

Museveni and Garang are old school buddies, both trained at Dar Es Salaam University in Tanzania, where the curriculum had a definite Maoist bent.

Tiny Rowland is a mutual friend. Speaking on a British Broadcasting Corp. newscast in Nairobi, Kenya in March 1993, Rowland declared that he is a member of Garang’s SPLA and had been since 1984, reported the South African Weekly Mail.

As the Weekly Mail explained,

“Southern Sudan has an undeveloped oil industry and Lonrho is interested in a project to bring oil out in a pipeline leading through Kenya – where Rowland has important interests – to Mombasa, instead of through the Red Sea port of Port Sudan as the Khartoum government has planned.”

The SPLA is advised by Dr. Mansur Khalid, a former foreign minister of Sudan, who is now employed by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in Nairobi, Kenya.

The UNDP officer in Uganda, who is also reportedly involved in support operations for Garang, is one Hans Farelius, a former Protestant missionary. Farelius is reported to have moved to Kampala in 1989 from Uppsala, Sweden. In Uppsala, he aided Museveni, who came to Sweden for retooling in 1985-86, before taking power in Entebbe.

Unlike the rest of Africa’s leaders, Museveni has not come under pressure to democratize. Says one London source: “The British are very much behind this government. You know there is no condition at all on democratization.

The President doesn’t even pretend [to be] for this, and he is still a darling of the West.

ChronologyRwanda-Uganda genocide

1986: Yoweri Museveni comes to power in Uganda, after a five-year guerrilla war. Museveni’s benefactors during the guerrilla war included Tiny Rowland, chairman of the London-Rhodesia Corp. (Lonrho), and Moshood Abiola, the Nigeria magnate operating on behalf of ITT.

1989: Leaders of the Ugandan Army, including the current vice president of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, are sent to Fort Leavenworth U.S. Army Command and Staff College.

August-September 1990: Rwandans of Uganda Army group in southwestern Uganda are led by Ugandan Maj.-Gen. Fred Rwigyema in preparation for invasion of Uganda.

Oct. 1,1990: Rwandan Patriotic Front section of Ugandan Army invades Rwanda through Akagera Park. Oct. 27,1990: Cease-fire, as RPF is repelled by French paratrooper force from the outskirts of Kigali.

1991: RPF invades again, coming through Virunga Park, seizing the town of Ruhengeri, causing mass exodus of over 200,000 refugees. RPF then pulls back, occupying the entire eastern portion of the Virunga Park, from where it sends continual artillery barrages onto the Rwandan plain.

1992: As RPF incursions continue, Habyarimana government begins organizing militias in the countryside; begins to raise military from 5,000 troops to 40,000.

February 1993: RPF invades Rwanda, taking control of a chunk of territory in the north, killing 40,000 Hutus. Mass exodus of refugees from the area.

June 1, 1993: Melchior Ndadaye is elected first Hutu President in Burundi, in first national elections.

August 1993: Arusha Accords, negotiated between Habyarimana government and RPF, under U.S. and British auspices, grant RPF 50% of commander and officer posts in Army and 40% of the troops, and seven cabinet posts.

Oct. 23, 1993: Attempted coup in Burundi by Tutsidominated military. Ndadaye is murdered, with up to 100,000 Hutus. More than 700,000 Hutus flee Burundi. International press gives no notice.

December 1993: RPF moves 600 troops into Kigali under Arusha Accords.

January 1994: British Defense Department African strategists are reportedly moved off their concentration on Angola and put on Rwanda.

March 1994: Another slaughter of Hutus in Burundi, up to 40,000 killed.

April 6, 1994: Plane carrying Rwandan President Habyarimana and Burundi President Ntaryamira is brought down by three rockets, killing all on board. Mass killings by Rwandan government troops erupt in Kigali; RPF begins invasion from Virunga and Akegera Parks.

May 1994: U.N. imposes arms embargo on Rwandan government, as mass slaughter continues throughout the country.

June 21, 1994: France gains U.N. approval to send troops to Rwanda. French troops set up Safe Zones, nearly clashing with RPF forces.

July 12,1994: 1 million Rwandans flee to Zaire. July 15, 1994: RPF is in effective control of Rwanda, with exception of French Safe Zones. July 22-27,1994: Lady Lynda Chalker, British Minister of Overseas Development, visits Uganda. July 29, 1994: President Clinton pledges U.S. humanitarian aid operation to Rwandan refugees, to be carried out by U.S. military. A survey taken by the group Doctors without Borders in the first week of August shows that 80,000 people, at least, had died in the Zaire camps since mid-July – 8% of those in camps.

Aug. 22,1994: French troops leave protected zone.

Sept. 29, 1994: Relief workers from U.N. High Commission on Refugees, Doctors without Borders, the German Red Cross, Oxfam, Concern, Assist, and Care Australia, and from Sweden and South Korea begin to pull out of the Rwandan refugee camps in Zaire.

West Africa – war against Nigeria

“A confrontation is looming in Nigeria that could exceed even the catastrophe of Rwanda,” a signal editorial published in the London Independent threatened on Aug. 29.

“There are 10 times more Nigerians than Rwandans and many millions more in Nigeria’s neighboring countries who depend on its economy. If Nigeria explodes, the repercussions will affect all of West Africa.”

Among its “crimes,” Nigeria exercises full control over its own parks.

Nigeria also permits hunting with a license and agriculture in its parks. More to the point, Nigeria, under Gen. Sani Abacha, has drawn a line against the rapacious looting of the country by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The Independent is promoting the former cash dispenser to Uganda’s Museveni, Mooshod Abiola:

“Nigeria has been ruled by its soldiers for all but 10 years of its independent existence. The soldiers have prevented the break-up of the country but have achieved little else. .. . They have also become identified with the northern Muslim elite, which might fight rather than be ruled by a southerner such as Abiola.”

The Independent was speaking for Minister of Overseas Development Lady Lynda Chalker.

In February, Chalker threatened Nigerian leaders that Britain would never lift its sanctions against Nigeria unless it restored “democracy” (put Abiola in power), and reduced its “enormous deficit” (bring back the IMF).

In Nigeria, the point man for the World Wide Fund for Nature is Chief Salay L. Edu. Chief Edu and his son Aboyamo are members of the 1001 Club. The Edus are from the Ibo tribe of southeastern Nigeria, whose attempt to secede from Nigeria in 1967 led to the Biafran war.

In 1989, Chief Edu hosted Prince Philip in a visit to the wetland area bordering Niger, a tour requiring a new airfield.

In 1990, Edu hosted Prince Charles in a visit to the site, to view migrating birds from Europe. The WWF wants to put a park in the area. Chief Edu also happens to be the point man in Nigeria for Royal Dutch Shell, a financial moneybag for the WWF. Shell runs 50% of Nigeria’s 2 million barrels per day oil production. Through this route, the Fund launched its provocations.

In a bid to cut off supplies of foreign exchange, Shell organized a strike of oil workers, who demanded the release of Abiola from jail and a government payout of $800 million in arrears Nigeria allegedly owes Royal Dutch Shell and other foreign companies.

“Shell is behind this strike,” a well-informed London source told EIR. “The easiest thing for them to do is to bribe the union with a payoff to provoke such a strike. It is entirely political. Shell and the U.K. Foreign Office want a civilian regime which will be weak.”

The Abacha government, however, managed to settle the strike in September.

South Africa in the British crosshairs

On April 26, EIR received information of a plot to kill South Africa’s Nelson Mandela, soon to become the first black African President of South Africa.

According to a European-based source, the information, subsequently corroborated, was that “big, big money was coming out of Great Britain” to arrange the assassination.

Asked who specifically was providing the money, the source replied:

“Look for the friends of Henry Kissinger in Britain.”

The objective of such a plot, the source stated, is to,

“kill two birds with one stone. Obviously, the murder will be blamed on the extremist Boers and white supremacists. This would instantly cause a civil war. This would give the pretext for the declaration of martial law.”

An EIR investigation showed that the operation against Mandela was centered in the Hollinger Corp., whose board of directors includes Lynda Chalker booster and former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Henry Kissinger, 1001 Club member Conrad Black, and Peter Lord Carrington.

Both Kissinger and Carrington had been on the scene in South Africa to “negotiate” the pre-election deal with Zulu Inkatha Party leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi.

Although the murder did not proceed, the South African President remains in the crosshairs of British intelligence. Without his statesmanship and his unflinching commitment to a policy of reconciliation, it is likely that South Africa would be drowned in a civil war.

The corroborating signal that the plot against Mandela was live, was the terrorist car bombings in Johannesburg the week before the April 27 elections. The bombings were designed to create an environment of terror and violence, stoking the climate for a hit on the new President. Military intelligence sources in South Africa confirmed that the bombings were not by the Terreblanche group but were the work of professionals.

In addition, on April 29, the London Daily Telegraph reported that British S AS operatives were running a good deal of the South African “extreme right-wing” terrorist capability. Among the 32 bombing suspects held by the South African police was one Kevin Conroy, who claimed to have served with the SAS.

He suddenly emerged in 1993 as a leader of the AWB’s Iron Guard and a right-hand man of its leader Eugene Terreblanche.

Most of the Iron Guards, the Daily Telegraph noted,

“had European accents which ranged from those of Ireland, through Birmingham and London to Germany and central and eastern Europe.”

Other Overt Criminal ActsThe WWF is out to balkanize and depopulate the Americas
by Jeffrey Steinberg

The level of genocide carried out by Prince Philip’s World Wide Fund for Nature against the people of Africa is unprecedented in human history.

And to fulfill their goals of driving the world population below 1 billion over the next several decades and restoring a new global feudal order, the British Crown and the WWF are committed to the same genocide against the Americas, Eurasia, and Australia.

As the following maps and charts will show, every program that the WWF carried out against Africa since 1961 has now been set in place in the Americas.

For the moment, the body count is smaller; but some crucial elements of the WWF agenda are more advanced in North, Central, and South America than anywhere else on the globe:

Nowhere in the world has so much land been set aside as nature preserves, animal preserves, and anthropological reserves as in North America. The western third of the United States is on the verge of being transformed into the world’s largest protected area, taking vast reserves of natural resources, some of the Earth’s finest farmland, and crucial water, transportation, and communication links out of service.

In Central and South America, the WWF and International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) have established a precedent: “anthropological reserves.” These are human zoos in which primitive tribes, like the Yanomami Indians of the Amazon rainforest, are kept in a permanent state of backwardness and are designated as “endangered species,” like the African elephants and rhinos. Seven countries of Ibero-America have one or more anthropological reserves. Brazil alone has 250 such “human game preserves.”

Nowhere in the world does drug production and processing occur on such a large scale as in the Americas – and much of this happens inside or adjacent to the WWF protected areas. Areas capable of producing food have been transformed into giant coca plantations and cocaine-processing centers in Bolivia, Peru, and Colombia.

In parts of the United States, national forests in the western states house large marijuana plantations that produce an estimated $50 billion a year in illegal pot.

In almost all of these drug-producing areas, typified by the Upper Huallaga River Valley in Peru, the role of “park ranger” has been assigned to narco-terrorist gangs like the Shining Path, which have carried out genocide against local Indian populations.

As in the case of the guerrilla groups that are trained and housed in the large game preserves and national parks of Africa, South America’s narco-terrorists for decades enjoyed the patronage and logistical support of both the WWF and Soviet bloc intelligence agencies.

Whereas the collapse of the Soviet Union largely brought an end to communist support for guerrilla operations in Africa, the support by Cuba for the narco-insurgents, eco-terrorists, and indigenous-separatist groups continues.

Similarly, throughout North America, eco-terrorist groups like,

Earth First!

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

the Animal Liberation Front

the Rainforest Action Network,

…have been carrying out a campaign of sabotage against industry, modern agriculture, and the electric power grid.

MAPS 7 AND 8

KEY TO MAPS 7 AND 8
The map of North America and the Caribbean (Map 7) shows a proposal put forward by Joel Garreau in The Nine Nations of North America (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1981). Garreau, like the WWF and other advocates of “balkanization,” called for the breakup of the United States, Canada, and Mexico into smaller regions, defined by “common concerns.”

The map of the Southwest United States and border areas of Mexico (Map 8) shows the expansion of protected areas under the California Desert Protection Act, which was voted up by the U.S. Congress in October 1994. The act set aside 8 million additional acres of land in southern California.

The map indicates the pre-existing set-aside lands (12 million acres) and shows most of the 67 expansion areas, many of which come out of public lands that were managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. BLM land is often open to commercial uses such as mining, farming, grazing and recreation; however, most of these activities are now prohibited. Under pending proposals and legislation, as much as 80% of the state of California could be converted to forests, parks, and wilderness preserves by the end of the century.

Fulfilling a longstanding British Crown policy, efforts States.

One of the most advanced schemes, “Cascadia,” are under way to “balkanize” North and South America into, would create a nature preserve encompassing parts of the Northwest of the United States and Canada.

Large parts of autonomous zones that would destroy the sovereignty of every nation in the Western Hemisphere, including the United Cascadia would be off-limits to all human beings.

Map 9

KEY TO MAP 9North American protected areas

1. Akwesasne Mohawk Reservation:

One of several well-known smuggling routes for guns and drugs on the U.S.-Canada border. Wildlife reserves and game park are also prime routes.

2. Cree Indian claims:

The Cree Indians want 1 million sq km or two-thirds of the territory of Quebec as their homeland, if Quebec separates from Canada. James Bay Hydro-Quebec power stations in contested area supply substantial amount of power to all of Northeast United States.

3. Nunavut:

On June 10,1993 Queen Elizabeth II, with help from World Wildlife Fund officials, establishes autonomous territory for Inouit Natives almost seven times the size of England. The WWF, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and Indigenous Survival International are working to replicate the process elsewhere. Under the Nunavut Act, the territory will become an autonomous “nation” under Crown control in 1999.

4. Cascadia:

March 1994, a campaign is launched in the Pacific Northwest to turn millions of acres of the Cascade Mountains into an international park. Human beings would be banned from the park, which extends across the border between Washington and Vancouver. Area is the epicenter ofEarth First! terrorist activities.

5. California Desert Wilderness:

On Oct. 8, 1994 the U.S. Congress designates an additional 8 million acres of southern California to become wilderness areas and national parks. Total area now exceeds 20 million acres, larger than New England, and reaches the Mexican border.

6. Southwest:

1991, Earth First! terrorists attempt to blow up power lines leading from a nuclear power plant in Arizona, hoping to cause a meltdown.

October 1994, U.S. soldiers break up a terrorist training camp. The Gardens, described as a “sacred site of the native voodoo religion,” are run by the New York Botanical Garden and the Biodiversity Trust headed by Prince Charles. The Gardens are owned by Catherine Dunham, African-American choreographer, a self-described “voodoo priestess,” and onetime supporter of the Duvalier dictatorship who now backs Aristide.

MAP 10
Protected areas and insurgency of Mexico and Central America (inset; Chiapas)
* See above for definitions of protected areas and sources.

KEY TO MAP 10Mexico and Central America protected areas

1. Chiapas, Mexico:

The staging area for the separatist insurrection launched on Jan. 1,1994 by the Zapatista National Liberation Army, includes two large ecological parks along the border with Guatemala.

A longtime resident gave EIR the following account:

A. Lagunas de Montebello National Park. “That’s where it all began. Twenty kilometers south of the lagoons, but inside the park, there is a little village called Tziscao. It’s Zapatista, with training camps and all. There have always been guerrillas there. It’s heavy jungle.”

B. Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve, 331,200 hectares. “They found a guerrilla camp right there, and there are photographs. Right on the border with Guatemala. On the western edge of the reserve, about a third of the way up from south to north, there’s Segundo Valley, and the village of San Quintin. They have an archaeological research station there, and also guerrilla training camps. It’s in the heart of the Lacandon Jungle.”

C. Agua Azul Cascades National Park. “There’s a lot of conflict in the area. The guerrillas take refuge there. The town of Bachajon is run by the Zapatistas. They even guard the Cascades and charge tourists to get there – they’ve taken over the area. It used to be beautiful, but it’s destroyed now. Some people say that Sub-Commander Marcos of the Zapatistas was trained nearby, just north of the archaeological zone of Palenque.”

D. El Ocote Ecological Reserve. “This is outside the Zapatista zone, but marijuana is grown there. There’s a little island in the lake formed by the Malpaso Dam, across from the village of Apitpac. They grow it there. Also, there are a lot of kidnappings and they hide the victims in the adjacent Las Chimalapas reserve.”

There are also more than 40,000 Guatemalan refugees in the staging area, including members of Rigoberta Menchu’s URNG guerrilla base. The cross-border area has had intense guerrilla activity for decades. In January 1993, Menchu led a march of thousands of refugees from Chiapas back to Guatemala; food was airlifted along the way by C-130 transports of the British Royal Air Force based in Belize. The same cross-border area also involves significant drug cultivation and transshipment from South America. Chiapas has Mexico’s largest oil reserves, and produces over half of the country’s hydro power.

In May 1994, Teddy Goldsmith’s magazine Ecologist endorsed the uprising: “The revolt… was a dignified reaction to too much development. It arose because people opted for a more dignified form of dying.”

The WWF, in partnership with the government and private groups, coordinates “community development” programs In these parks, including an effort to stop a proposed major highway linking Chiapas to the center of Mexico, because it would go through the El Ocote reserve.

TABLE 3

TABLE 4

In July, the WWF sponsored a workshop on this subject in San Isidro, Chiapas, with experts from the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Forestry Council, and the British Council, the latter created under royal charter.

2. Belize:

British Commonwealth member Belize is a center for ecological activities spreading out across Mexico and Central America. A trinational park is planned on Belize’s common border with Guatemala and Mexico. “Also known as the Azul Triangle, this is a vast and mostly uninhabited region, with numerous Mayan ruins,” says the IUCN. In February 1994, at the height of the Zapatista uprising, Queen Elizabeth spent three days visiting Belize on the royal yacht Britannia.

3. Central America:

At an Oct. 14, 1994 summit, the seven countries of the region formed the “Central American Alliance for Sustainable Development,” to protect forests and endangered species, and promote environmental education. The accord is widely viewed as a breakthrough in implementation of the Eco ’92 agenda.

In 1992 the U.S. National Geographic Society and Cultural Survival launched a pilot project to map overlapping ecological zones and Indian areas across Central America. Project adviser Bernard Nietschmann (University of California) concluded: “States are expansionist…. They gobble resources, and they repress peoples. .. . [Nicaragua] is a colonial creation imposed on preexisting and unconsenting indigenous nations.”

* excluding national forests, where data for this category are available Source: IUCN, 1992

There are four existing, and six planned, cross-border ecological parks. The most ambitious is the projected “Path of the Panther,” which would link up existing national parks into a continuous “green corridor” running 2,500 km. from one end of Central America to the other. Wildlife Conservation International and the CaribbearvConservation Corp. are coordinating the project. The Path of the Panther, like some existing parks, would make it impossible to build necessary great infrastructure projects, such as a Second Panama Canal across the isthmus, or a Pan American Railroad and Highway connecting North America with the southern tip of South America.

4. Miskito Coast:

The Miskito Cays Wildlife Refuge, 502,000 hectares, was established in 1991 by Nicaragua. Its purpose, as defined by the IUCN, is “to protect islands, reefs, sea turtles and coastal wetlands, and the Miskito Indian culture” – in that order. The WWF helped create an “Indian” NGO, Mikupia, to run the reserve in which the 15,000 Miskito Indians now live; to “restore Miskito culture;” and to provide “ecotourism” for foreigners. Its extension into Honduras is already planned.

The Miskito Indians are a British fabrication. In the 1600s, British pirates gave that name to the people living along the northern and eastern coasts of what are today Honduras and Nicaragua, who were mixed descendants of these pirates, black slaves from British woodcutting gangs, and the semi-nomadic Indian inhabitants.

The Miskito flag is modeled on the Union Jack, and their primary economic activity from the 1600s until today has been contraband.

MAP 11

KEY TO MAP 11South American protected areas

1. Yanomami Reserve:

In 1991 the governments of Venezuela and Brazil issued decrees designating a contiguous cross-border area totalling 17.8 million hectares as a protected reserve for the Yanomami, a group of at most 16,000 semi-nomadic Indians.

The Yanomami still live in a largely hunting and gathering mode in the jungle, their life expectancy averages about 30 years, and many practice infanticide and cannibalism. The Yanomami project is designed to create a buffer state nearly the size of Uruguay between Brazil and Venezuela, abrogating national sovereignty and under supranational control.

This cross-border park is a model of what the IUCN calls Category VII managed areas,

“National Biotic Area/Anthropological Reserves,” which they define as protected areas “allowing the way of life of societies living in harmony with the environment to continue undisturbed by modern technology.”

As of 1992, seven countries in Ibero-America had Category VII reserves: Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, and Venezuela. In the case of Brazil, 250 such Indian reserves had been established as of 1994, and another 265 await official demarcation. This amounts to 10.5% of the national territory, set aside for about 300,000 people, or 0.2% of the total population.

The creation of the Yanomami reserve has been a personal project of the British royal family for nearly 25 years.

The WWF’s “human” division, Survival International, was founded in 1969 to lead the campaign. Princes Charles and Philip deployed personally to Brazil in 1990 and 1991 to promote the project; the WWF ran an international publicity and pressure campaign for the park; and the Overseas Development Authority’s Lady Lynda Chalker was sent to Brazil in 1990 to ram it through.

In July 1991, Sir Walter Bodmer, president of the Human Genome Organization, announced that the Yanomamis would be the first tribe to have their genes frozen and archived in London’s Museum of Human Genetics as the first entry in a planned “library” of genes of “peoples in extinction.”

2. Colombia:

By 1992, there were 253 Category VII “anthropological reserves” in the country, with over 6 million hectares of Amazon territory locked up in such areas.

3. Ecuador:

In 1989, the WWF’s local branch, Fundacion Natura, demanded the government expand its national protected areas system by creating more indigenous “bioanthropological reserves.” Mass protests by various indigenist movements followed, and in 1992 the government demarcated an additional 1.1 million hectares in Pastaza province as Indian territory.

Fundacion Natura runs training programs for staff at the national protected areas, manages two protected forests, and finances numerous ecological projects. Part of their money comes from a 1988 debt-for-nature swap worth $10 million, according to the IUCN. With international environmentalist groups, they are deployed to shut down this country’s oil industry.

In October 1994, the UNDP proposed that Ecuador’s Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean be removed entirely from national control, and placed under international supervision in order to prevent ecological deterioration.

4. Upper Huallaga River Valley, Peru:

The premier cocaine-producing zone of the premier cocaine-producing country in the world, this valley is dense with ecological protected areas, including the indicated Biabo-Cordillera Azul and Alexander von Humboldt national parks, which straddle the Huallaga River and its drug-trafficking corridor.

It is also the main remaining locus of the indigenist Shining Path narcoterrorists, who maintain a symbiotic relationship with the drug traffickers.

5. Apurimac Reserved Zone, Peru:

In August 1994, Peruvian Army troops uncovered 300 mass graves containing 1,200 corpses of butchered Ashaninka Indians, on the eastern bank of the Ene River, inside the 1,669,290-hectare Apurimac Reserved Zone. The Ashaninkas had been strangled or hacked to death after years of enslavement, by British-backed Shining Path guerrillas operating in the park.

Beginning in 1988, the narco-terrorists had forced the uncooperative Ashaninkas to work “from sun-up to sun-down, stripping them of their lands, their animals, and their meager belongings, subjecting them to .. . interminable sessions of ideological indoctrination, watched, tortured, and assassinated on the slightest allegation of ‘treason’ by political commissars,” according to the Peruvian daily La Republica.

When the Ashaninkas became ill from malnutrition or poor treatment, they were simply eliminated as “human parasites.”

London has been the international logistical and propaganda base for Shining Path since at least 1983, when the Revolutionary International Movement (RIM) was founded there. RIM, a terrorist international which includes Shining Path, is committed to aiding “all indigenous peoples’ struggles.”

In August 1992, the British Home Office, operating through its Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA), produced and broadcast a “documentary” glorifying Shining Path, which it then handed over to the narco-terrorist group for international use in fundraising and propaganda.

To produce the report, two IBA reporters had accompanied Shining Path on their rampages.

6. Bolivia:

This unpopulated nation is designated to become one large “eco-tourist” camp. The Noel Kempff National Park, a wilderness area the size of West Virginia on Bolivia’s border with Brazil, is the centerpiece of a government-private plan to bring in up to $1 billion from such “ecological tourism” over the course of a decade.

Foreign sponsors of the park include:

the Nature Conservancy

Wildlife Conservation Society

Conservation International

the New York Academy of Sciences

the U.S. government’s Agency for International Development

Plans are already under way to triple the size of the park, making it one of the largest in South America.

block the construction of an oil pipeline in the Cabo Virgenes area in the far south

has proposed legislation which designates ecological crimes

drafted legislation which was later approved which severely limits the use of pesticides in agriculture

has targeted the country’s significant nuclear and aerospace industries for destruction

MAP 12
South American infrastructure projects

KEY TO MAP 12
South American projects

The protected areas have become a major obstacle to the construction of great infrastructure projects, which are the only answer to the economic genocide ravaging I bero-America.

The same obstruction of needed infrastructure projects applies in North America, where the large tracts of set-aside land in the western states block necessary water projects such as Nawapa (the North American Water and Power Alliance).

The following three projects are the most critical in South America:

1. The Pan American Railroad:

This is a proposed continental North-South line running down from North America through Central America, cutting across the Darien Gap into Colombia, and then running south from Bogota, Colombia, to Santa Cruz, Bolivia, along the narrow strip of flatlands on the eastern slope of the Andes. In Santa Cruz it would link up with existing lines running to Sao Paulo, Brazil and Buenos Aires, Argentina. The two most important trans-Andean spurs would run from Iquitos to Chiclayo in Peru, and from Santa Cruz to Arica, Chile.

These routes are blocked by environmental parks across Central America, such as the proposed “Path of the Panther”; in the Darien Gap; throughout the eastern slope of the Andes; and along both trans-Andean routes.

2. A new interoceanic canal:

The world needs a new sea-level canal capable of handling supertankers of up to 300,000 tons deadweight. There are two preferred routes: one cutting through Panama just west of the current canal; another, known as the Atrato-Truando Canal, which runs through the Darien Gap region of Colombia, taking advantage of existing rivers and lakes. They are both blocked by existing and projected protected areas, including in the Darien Gap and the “Path of the Panther.”

3. River integration:

The single most important infrastructure project for opening up the interior of the continent to development and population, is the integration of the area’s three great river systems; the Orinoco, the Amazon, and the Rio de la Plata systems.

When the 10,000 km route is completed, ships could sail directly into every country in South America, except for Chile, Sixty-eight percent of the route is already navigable for medium-sized ships and barges; another 28% requires relatively minor dredging, channel widening, and similar works; major projects are required on only 4% of the route.

Of these, there are two major canals, which must be constructed: one linking the Orinoco and the Amazon rivers in southern Venezuela, the other connecting the Amazon and the Parani rivers in western Brazil. Both fall in protected areas.

Other Exhibits

The royal plot to splinter Australia

The cutting edge of the attempt to shatter the sovereignty of the Australian nation is the “aboriginal land rights” movement, the local arm of Prince Philip‘sinternational “indigenous peoples” apparat.

A glance at a map shows an almost unbroken swath of territory in the center of the country running from the continent’s northern coast to its southern one, in major portions of which one needs a permit from the local aboriginal lands council to even set foot.

Australia’s 250,000 aborigines, approximately 1.5% of the nation’s 17 million population, at present hold 15% of the nation’s land, and have filed claims for another 10%.

these massive holdings form the basis to carte out an “aboriginal nation,” which would split Australia in half

this has been called for by Australia’s Uniting Church Synod, the country’s most influential religious body

World Council of Churches-tied liberation theologists

the communist foot soldiers of the aboriginal land rights movement

MAP 13
Protected areas of Australia

Such “sovereign aboriginal republics” were called for at the fourth and sixth conferences of the Communist International in the 1920s and have been standard leftist demands since then.

Added to lands set aside under various “wilderness” or conservation guises, the total land either now or in the near future to be taken out of circulation, not all of which is shown on the map, comprises at least 32% of the continent.

On June 3, 1992, the High Court of Australia ruled in the case of Eddie Mabo v. Queensland that Australia’s common law recognized native title to land. The previous legal doctrine, which went back to 1788 and which had declared Australia terra nullus (empty land) before the British arrived, was overturned, potentially throwing the entire continent up for grabs.

In addition to private funding by those Anglophile Australian bluebloods typified by the boards of the Australian Conservation Foundation and WWF-Australia, the government’s Aboriginal and Torres Straights Islanders Commission (ATSIC) pours $2.2 billion per year into “aboriginal rights,” little of which benefits aborigines.

In addition to the aboriginal-claimed land, vast chunks of Australia have been confiscated under a myriad of “conservation,” “world heritage,” or “wilderness” designations. Over 1.2 million square kilometers of Australia’s total of 7,682,427 have been so designated.

The federal Australian Heritage Commission, like the Australian Conservation Foundation a constituent body of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, reported 10,520 “conserved sites” in 1992; by the time of their annual report for 1992-93, they had 18,000 such listings, with 1,576 more awaiting consideration.

WWF – Send Europe back to the Dark Age

If Prince Philip and the WWF have their way, Europe in the early years of the twenty-first century will be a throwback to the feudal era of the Black Plague that preceded the Golden Renaissance of the fifteenth century.

In the last two years, the WWF and one of its corporate affiliates, the Heineken Breweries of The Netherlands, have produced a series of studies advocating the break-up of the nation-states of Europe and a four-fold increase in the number of nature preserves, game parks, and protected areas in continental western Europe.

The Heineken study calls for redrawing the map of Europe into 75 mini-states, with populations of 10 million people at the most. Each mini-state would be ruled by a member of one of the existing European Royal Houses.

Board Chairman A.H. Heineken, the sponsor of the plan, is a longtime booster of WWF and IUCN efforts. For many years, John Loudon, the former chairman of the board of Royal Dutch Shell and the international president of WWF from 1977 to 1981, had a seat on the Heineken board.

The plan has been embraced by Ecoropa, one of the important WWF affiliates in Europe, founded by the late self-described “universal fascist” Denis de Rougemont and Teddy Goldsmith.

This year, WWF and IUCN issued a study called “Parks for Life: Action for Protected Areas in Europe,” which called for quadrupling the set-aside land in western Europe.

The scheme would shut down all pending plans for new rail systems, water projects, and other vital East-West infrastructure projects, because all of these interlinks would be cut off by the parks. The blueprint is consistent with the Heineken proposal, and calls for the nation-state system to be replaced with a new political geography based on “bio-regions.”

To make sure that this re-feudalization scheme is successful, many of WWF’s wealthiest boosters, including a number of 1001 Club members, are reportedly buying up large tracts of land in areas designated as future parks and protected areas.

If Prince Philip and the WWF-IUCN apparatus run up against resistance to these schemes, they have a growing Green Party movement across the continent to turn to as goon squads.

Europe’s Green movement was created as the joint project of the WWF and the former secret police agencies of the Soviet bloc, particularly the East German Stasi (state security service).

WWF role model is Cambodia’s Pol PotPol Pot, leader of the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, has been extolled as the ecological model by a key leader of the World Wide Fund for Nature, Edward Goldsmith.

During the Khmer Rouge’s brief four years in power in Cambodia, 1975-79, it is estimated that 3 million people out of a population of 7 million, were either murdered or died of starvation and exhaustion.

Writing in the London Guardian, journalist Patrick Wright noted that Teddy Goldsmith, whose brother James Goldsmith is a business partner of financier and LaRouche hater John Train, was pursuing a “hunter-gatherer ideal” in the early 1970s. This led to the publication in 1972 of the “influential” book Blueprint for Survival.

Wright reports:

“Like others who have started out on the far side of an enlightenment rejected as rationalistic, mechanistic, and wholly unsustainable, members of this doom-saying circle were capable of drawing bizarre and lamentable conclusions.

They foresaw a significant role for the police and the courts in supervising the cataclysmic changes that were surely to come, described racial tolerance as a sign of cultural decline, and even got around to commending Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge as pioneers of decentralized rural society.”

Teddy Goldsmith knew his man well. Territory in Cambodia under Khmer Rouge control in the 1990s has come under strict control of World Wide Fund for Nature mandates, led by Pol Pot himself.

In the Jan. 31, 1991 Bangkok Post, journalist James Pringle filed this story on the mass murderer:

“Pol Pot, the infamous leader of the Khmer Rouge, has called on Cambodians to protect endangered species. He means, of course, Cambodia’s diminishing wildlife, though during the period of Khmer Rouge rule, the most endangered species here was the human species.”

Putting words into action, Pol Pot issued a directive calling on Cambodians not to poach birds and animals and refrain from killing them for any reason – presumably including for purposes of food consumption.

“One of the Khmer Rouge leader’s most trusted lieutenants, Ta Mok, who is known by Cambodians as ‘The Butcher’ because of his extreme cruelty, is also now hot on ecology issues and the protection of endangered species,” reported Pringle.

“Anyone contravening Pol Pot’s ‘green’ directive along the northern border of Cambodia where Ta Mok operates is brought before a jungle court and is normally sentenced to four days’ labor on constructing fencing for animal sanctuaries.”

WWF’s eco-terrorist, eco-fascist legionsby Rogelio Maduro

In addition to the extensive military and terrorist apparatus set up by the World Wildlife Fund in Africa, the WWF has directly spawned a global network of organizations to carry out terrorist and proto-terrorist operations that include everything from economic blockades and public demonstrations, to terrorist violence and sabotage.

Although WWF has attempted to remain at arms length from this eco-terrorist underground, public documents and eyewitness accounts show that every one of the overtly “eco-terrorist” groups that sprang up beginning in 1969 was directly bankrolled and steered by the WWF.

There are several phases to this operation. In the first phase, 1969-71, the WWF spawned Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to initiate “direet action” against targets pre-selected by the WWF. During this phase, the proto-terrorist activities did not usually involve the destruction of life and property.

Beginning in the late 1970s, during the height of the activities of such underground terrorist groups as the Weathermen, the Baader-Meinhof gang, and the Red Brigades, the first generation organizations spawned splinter groups to carry out far more violent “direct actions” that involved the destruction of property and, in some cases, murder.

Through the WWF’s enormous control over the free world media, each of these successive escalations in eco-terrorism was greeted with largely favorable press coverage.

The founding of GreenpeaceThe most important of the international eco-terror organizations, Greenpeace, was created by the WWF in 1971 in Vancouver, British Columbia, a well-known center of British Intelligence (i.e., British Crown) operations in the Western Hemisphere.

Early Greenpeace membership was comprised of members of the Vancouver Liberation Front, an affiliate of the Weathermen in the United States, of Maoists, counter-culturalists, and operatives of the Cadbury family-sponsored Quaker action movement.

The principal source of early Greenpeace funding was the WWF, which purchased and Outfitted the original Greenpeace “navy.”

A series of more radical organizations was spawned from Greenpeace, including the Sea Shepherd Society, Earth First! and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Animal Liberation Front.

The leadership, funding, and logistical base of these organizations are interchangeable. Susan Pardee, for example, who is a member of the Greenpeace office in Seattle, Washington, is also a local leader of Earth First! and the Native Forest Network. The Seattle Earth First! office is located within the Greenpeace office.

As a result of this WWF effort, the United States and other nations have increasingly fallen victim to a low-intensity war being carried out by eco-terrorists. This war is rarely reported in the press.

Acts of terrorism take place in the United States on a daily basis, including fire-bombings of logging mills and livestock auction buildings; the destruction of farming, logging, mining, and fishing equipment; and the sabotage of biomedical research facilities.

Sea Shepherd terrorism
The case of Sea Shepherd’ s campaign against the whaling industry is exemplary.

Paul Watson, a member of the Vancouver Liberation Front who was involved in the 1973 shootout with U. S. federal agents at the Wounded Knee Indian Reservation and who is a founding member of Greenpeace, created a more radical splinter group in 1977 called the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

Watson was bankrolled from day one by WWF-U.S. activist Cleveland Amory, head of the Fund for Animals, and by Britain’s Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. This money was used to purchase a British fishing boat which was used to hunt down the Portuguese whaling vessel Sierra.

On July 17, 1979, Sea Shepherd rammed the Sierra off the coast of Portugal. Portuguese Coast Guard vessels captured the Sea Shepherd and were going to hold it as security until Watson paid for the damage caused to the Sierra. Instead of paying the $750,000 repair bill, Watson sank the Sea Shepherd in the Portuguese port of Leixoes on Dec. 31,1979.

Shortly afterward, on Feb. 5, 1980, a team of three eco-terrorists blew up the Sierra in Lisbon.

An unidentified woman called the Lisbon office of UPI from Spain and stated,

“The Sea Shepherd is avenged! Make no mistake about it; this was no accident; this was a deliberate act of sabotage! The Sierra will kill no more whales! We did it for the Sea Shepherd!”

On April 27, 1980, the Isba I and Isba II, two of Spain’s five whalers, were blown up in the harbor of Marin, near Vigo, Spain. According to Watson, the Spanish whaling ships were blown up by the same three unidentified eco-terrorists who had blown up the Sierra two months earlier.

From this start, Watson’s Sea Shepherd has led a terror campaign against the fishing and whaling ships of many nations. Watson takes credit for the sinking of several Icelandic and Norwegian whaling vessels. In addition, Sea Shepherd has rammed dozens of vessels, cut nets, and otherwise carried out actions defined as piracy under international law.

Despite all of his actions and one criminal conviction in Norway, Watson is a free man, unhindered by U.S. law enforcement agencies.

The presently closing dynastic cycleThis is the concluding section of the “presentation of the case to the jurors”

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

To judge the criminality of the accused, the evidence which has now been presented to you should be sufficient. To decide what course of action must be chosen to cure this crime, we must focus now upon four additional, interconnected facts.

For many of you, these additional facts represent a difficulty which it is urgent that you surmount. That difficulty is that although each of those points is a matter of historical fact, it is a fact which conflicts with stubborn popular misconceptions. Insofar as literate people of good will must share some of the blame for the perilous situation in which humanity is presently situated, their ignorance or neglect of those four facts is a contribution to the influence of those evils which have caused the present global crisis of mankind.

The administration of justice in the case at hand depends upon your willingness to examine the relevance of this additional matter.

We have been mustered by the outcry from an urgent crisis, not to punish some selected scapegoats, but to craft a judgment which focuses upon curing the problem before us. The duty to which we have been called by circumstance requires, first, that the jurors understand the historical setting in which the crime has been committed: that these horrors have arisen during the closing phase of a “dynastic cycle” in European history, a cycle of approximately five centuries.

To understand the characteristics of the presently ongoing collapse of the global political, monetary, and financial order, one must situate the recent six centuries of European civilization’s rise to global domination within the longer span of similar, earlier cycles of rise and fall of formerly dominant cultures. None of these cycles, including the present one, can be understood without first conceptualizing the second and third facts and the mutual interaction of those two facts.

The second fact to be taken into account is the special nature of the human species, as the past six centuries of world history have made most plain the differences between human and animal demographies.

Mankind is the only species which can willfully increase its potential relative population density, a distinct power of the individual person shown most directly and simply by the impact of valid, axiomatic-revolutionary scientific discovery of principles of nature upon the productive powers of labor.

As the heritage of the Renaissance has shown, more brilliantly than in any earlier portion of history, the nature of mankind lies in the potential creative-mental powers of the individual person, a notion of man in axiomatic opposition to what the modern British oligarchical tradition has adopted as its empiricist definition of “human nature.”2

Only from the standpoint of that second fact, can the significance of the third fact, oligarchism, be understood in a practical fashion. It is the conflict between, on the one side, the Mosaic notion of man as in the image of God,3 and the bestial view of man, inherent in oligarchism, that the functional characteristics of history’s and pre-history’s “dynastic cycles” are rooted.

The anti-Renaissance “Enlightenment” is to be recognized as a consistent, if modern example of the same type of oligarchism which caused the fall of Babylon and Rome.

2. In other words, the empiricist notion of man as presented by Henry VIII’s Venetian marriage counsellor’s, Francesco Zorzi’sHarmonia Mundi (1525), in the rosicrucian dogmas of Venetian Paolo Sarpi’ s english proteges, Francis Bacon and Robert Fludd, in the writings of Bacon’ s Thomas Hobbes, in the “social contract” dogma of John Locke, and of the English “Venetian Party’s” David Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and in the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill, et al. That anti-Christian, empiricist doctrine of “human nature” is otherwise known as the 17th and 18th centuries’ Enlightenment; this includes not only the Venice-created, anti-Leibniz faction of Voltaire, Maupertuis, Algarotti, Euler, et al. at Paris and Frederick the Great’s Berlin Academy, but also Immanuel Kant and the 19th-century Romantics and positivists generally.

3. On the reading of Genesis 1:26-28, see Philo Judaeus, On The Creation, in Philo, Vol. I, F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker, trans., Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981). The working point referenced in this way takes into account the historical fact that Philo, a contemporary of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, and a sometime collaborator of the Apostle Peter against the Mithraic Gnostics of Simon Magus et al., played a leading part in resurrecting the Mosaic heritage, and reflects the view of the Mosaic heritage found among the Christian Apostles, including John and Paul.

The fourth among these crucial historical facts to be considered, is the notion of what the achievements of modern European civilization might be, if the impulse supplied by the Renaissance were freed from the encumbrance of cohabitation with usury-based, venetian-style oligarchism.

To that purpose, one might focus initially upon the policy-changes, the “cultural-paradigm shift,” which have led the planet downward, especially during the past 30-odd years, to the present verge of a global “New Dark Age.”

The famous aphorism runs, “Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water”, to rescue the accumulated achievements of the past six centuries, out from under the collapsed rubble of the London-dominated monetary and financial system, is precisely the image the jurors might consider, in seeking a practicable decision of that quality which is consistent with the curative principle of justice.

We now present a thumb-nail description of the present “dynastic cycle.”

That image supplies the benchmark conception to which the relevant facts of the matter are related thereafter.

The origin, rise, and fall of the British Empire4
The breaking economic and financial crises now gripping the entirety of this planet reflect the close of an approximately 500-year cycle in european history.

This cycle began in the aftermath of the temporary rout of the vast maritime, political, and financial power of Venice, a rout caused by the mid-14th century disintegration of what is known to today’s historians as the “the Lombard debt-bubble,” a collapse which immediately plunged all of Europe into a “New Dark Age.”

The new cycle, which came to the surface during the 15th century, has been determined by the emerging conflict between the two leading forces within european culture during that century.

On the one side, there were the forces of the Golden Renaissance, centered around such figures as Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa and the 1439-40 Council of Florence. On the opposing side, was the reemerging power of the Venice-centered European aristocratic and financier oligarchy.

From the time of that council, especially following the war of the League of Cambrai against Venice, at the beginning of the 16th century,5 all European history since the 15th century within Europe and globally has been dominated by the cultural conflict between the radiated influence of the Renaissance and the opposing, Venice-launched force of the so-called “Enlightenment.”

During the very early 16th century, when the present “dynastic cycle” was first defined, the strategic situation was as follows.

4. The following description of the current dynastic cycle is a summary of the facts presented in Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “How Bertrand Russell Became an Evil Man,” Fidelio, Autumn 1994.

5. 1508-10.

The intellectual power of the Renaissance was the heritage of Nicolaus of Cusa’s founding of the principles of the modern system of nation-states and of modern science.

That influence is typified by the titanic intellects of Leonardo da Vinci, Erasmus of Rotterdam, and Raffaello Sanzio. Through the failure to resolve the issues within Italy itself, the modern nation-state was established first in France, by and under King Louis XI (1461-83).

Louis XI’s success fostered movements for establishing similar forms of nation-state in England and in Spain, in which the Oratorian and other Renaissance networks of Leonardo, Erasmus, and Raphael contributed in important ways.

The ensuing, admittedly unstable alliance among Queen Isabella’ s Spain, Henry VII’s Tudor England, and the heritage of Louis XI in France,6 formed around the Vatican the backbone of the anti-Venice alliance, the League of Cambrai. At the very point in that war that Venice was about to be conquered by the allies, its vast and evil usurious power broken forever, Venice succeeded in corrupting some of the allies; the League of Cambrai was dissolved.

Venice used the breathing-space it obtained so, to use corruption once again, to break up the alliance among France, Spain, and Tudor England. This was accomplished by Venice’s use of the trollop Anne Boleyn to tease King Henry VIII, crazed by Anne’s persisting sexual harassment, into measures which created a virtual permanent state of warfare among France, Spain, and England, from 1527 until the British cultural subjugation of France in the aftermath of the 1814 Congress of Vienna.

Thus, the presently closing, 500-year cycle of history began.

Admittedly, throughout the history of its existence as a political and financial entity, Venice always attempted to take over as much as possible, especially of payments, from any nation into which it could sink its diplomatic and financial claws.

That consideration, and Venice’s intent to keep the European powers at each other’s throats, represent the only clear purposes behind the great influence which Venice exerted in England, from the time of Anne Boleyn’s flirtations with Henry VIII, until 1582.

A change in this relationship of Venice to London came in the aftermath of the 1582 victory of Paolo Sarpi’s radical faction (the giovani) over Venice’s traditionalists (the vecchi); Sarpi’s majority faction sought to shift the base of the Venetian oligarchy’s operations from the strategically vulnerable Venice itself, to a new Venetian maritime power in the northern protestant countries, while the minority concentrated upon operating from within the factions of the nominally Catholic Counter-Reformation regions, to the south.

Sarpi’s faction chose London as the future headquarters of a “new Venice of the North.”

6. For the edification of any carping critics: The differences in policy between Louis XI’s nationalism and Charles VIII’s (of France) reversion to pre-Renaissance dynastic games, need not be reviewed in the context of this summary.

Out of a bloody transitional struggle during the last two decades of Elizabethan England, the accession of the Sarpi (e.g., Cecil) faction’s candidate, James VI of Scotland, to the English throne as James I, was the first formal step toward developing a London-centered “new Venice” as a global maritime and financial power like the imperial maritime power which Venice itself had enjoyed in the Mediterranean littoral during most of the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries.

By the late 17th and early 18th centuries, especially from the accession of William of Orange in 1688-89, the term “Venetian Party” was freely and widely used to describe the Liberal Party of England and the United Kingdom. This new form of British rule was not something autochthonously developed by the English people; it was imposed from the top down, by a combination of trickery, treason, and bloody force.

With the defeat of the Tory opposition to the Venetian Liberals, during the final years of Queen Anne, English sovereignty was crushed when the Mr. Welf also known as Georg Ludwig of Hanover, an asset of the Antonio Conti who was then Venice’s chief spy, ascended the newly established British throne as King George I.

From the 1760s rise to power by William Petty, the Second Earl of Shelburne, the East India Company potentate placed immediately above the throne, Venice’s agents completed the intellectual retooling of the British Liberals for the tasks of creating a worldwide British Empire.

This retooling was represented chiefly by what is known today by the somewhat misleading term,

Jeremy Bentham, founder of the British foreign intelligence service and coordinator of the French Jacobin Terror

Shelburne-selected historian Edward Gibbon

the famous plagiarist of Venetian Giammaria Ortes’s published writing on population control, Thomas Malthus

In 1814, Britain’s Venetian Party completed its immediate goal of France’s political subjugation.

It then prepared for its next imperial objectives: by the crushing of Britain’s former allies, Metterriich’s Holy Alliance, through subversion by British agent Mazzini’s radical terrorists, and by London’s reliance upon the treasonous corruption of certain factions within the United States for the reassimilation of the United States under British domination.

Except for the United States, the combined result of the revolutions and wars of the 19th century, and two world wars during the 20th century was: every one of the major transatlantic competitors of British power which had been standing proudly at the beginning of the 19th century, was either destroyed by war and revolution, or reduced to a servile state of political corruption, as was post-1918 France of the Third Republic.

Through U.S.A. political factions prominently associated with Theodore Roosevelt’s or Woodrow Wilson’s legacies, even the United States often played the part of an American dog on a British geopolitical and cultural leash.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), one of the leaders of the “Venetian Party” in Britain,

founded the British foreign intelligence service.

As we must recognize from the documented samplings of prominent persons and financier interests rallied around Prince Philip‘s “Allgemeine SS,” his World Wildlife Fund backers, the British monarchy is not a secretion of the people of the United Kingdom.

The current status of the Welf monarchy of Britain is that of “Primate among Parasites” for a truly international oligarchy, an oligarchy which knows no national loyalties, but which uses the British monarchy as its doge, much as the great princes of the so-called Habsburg Reich coddled or killed even members of the royal family through instruments such as the Geheimpolizei of von Kaunitz and Metternich.

Look at the physical evidence today: Britain’s imperial conquests manifestly have not been for the interest of the British people; the conquests have ultimately unified virtually all among the surviving royal, princely, aristocratic, and financial nobility of Europe (and beyond) into a single international oligarchy, a body of parasites which the currently reigning British doge serves as Primate.

As long as credible potentially contending powers existed, the London-centered international oligarchy did not dare suppress entirely the institutions of nation-state and scientific progress.

They hated those institutions, but they dared not evade them as long as potentially credible adversaries existed, lest the reigning Welf party’s feral oligarchs themselves become materially weak strategically in the face of then-intended prey.

It was only after the 1962 Cuba Missile Crisis, about 30 years ago, when the Soviet Union signed on to the nuclear-weapons condominium prescribed by Bertrand Russell, that the oligarchy dared to unleash its desire to ruin, and then eradicate the institution of the nation-state, scientific progress, and reason itself, through such “New Age” ventures as “post-industrial,” anti-science utopianism and the rock-drug-sex counterculture.

The result of the introduction of that mass “cultural-paradigm shift” during the past 30 years, has been to bring the entire planet to the present verge of a collapse into large-scale economic and political disintegration.

Since 1964, following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the emergence of the ruinous Harold Wilson government in the United Kingdom, there has been an accelerating, global collapse of the rate of physical-economic growth in scale and productivity of output and essential basic economic infrastructure, per capita and per square kilometer.

For the United States itself, as measured in those physical units, negative growth has prevailed continuously since the early 1970s, accelerating rapidly since 1982. Meanwhile, post-Thatcher Britain is a rubble-heap of formerly industrialized ruins, where the activity of financier saprophytes is called “privatization.”

The delusion of “periods of prosperity” in North America and Europe during the past 20 years, is premised on a combination of out-rightly faked statistics and, more significant, the fact that the financial system, for which the data is reported, has been de-coupled increasingly from the real economy of production and trade.

The inevitability of the early collapse of the present global monetary and financial system is fairly summed up in the following three paragraphs.

The present terminal sickness of the global financial system is marked by the phenomena of highly leveraged, out-of-control markets in so-called “derivatives.” Marked by this lunatic speculation, the financial system is operating like a vast, play-money casino, operating from dusk to dawn according to a blending of “game theory” with those outer limits of lunacy known as “chaos theory.”

The bubble of speculation so devised hangs by the thread of an income-stream taken from the real economy, an income-stream which is a tiny fraction of the nominal financial income imputed to investments in the bubble itself. In a word, the system is already bankrupt, if any competent standards of audit-transparency were in force.

To postpone the implosive bursting of the bubble, an increase of the original income-stream taken out of the real economy must occur.

However, the very existence of the bubble is already contracting the real economy at an accelerating rate. To increase the rate of income-stream from the real economy, means to attempt to lessen this week’s instability of the bubble by measures which worsen that same instability during the immediately ensuing weeks.

There are ominous similarities to the popping of the Lombard debt-bubble during the middle of the 14th century. This is a system which is axiomatically designed to self-destruct.

The destruction will occur either because sensible governments step in to put the world’s present central banking system and financial markets into government-conducted financial bankruptcy reorganization, or, if governments lack the political will to take those rational measures, the bubble will burst inevitably in a manner which resembles, mathematically, a chemical, nuclear, or thermonuclear explosion, except that this will be an implosion defined functionally by a reversed-leverage chain-reaction.

The reason this situation has been permitted to develop, is that the most powerful of the ensconced political potencies of this planet, the international oligarchy, threatens to destroy anyone, any nation which is considered a threat to the continued growth of this financial bubble, or a threat to the continuation of the “New Age” cultural paradigms.

Thus, the likely course of events, is that matters will become worse until the point is reached, as was the case after the mid-14th century debt-bubble crash, that the oligarchy is perceived to have lost enough of its financial and political power that remedial actions are not altogether disallowed.

So, we may view the now-ending long-cycle in its proper, axiomatic political terms. On the one side, there is the upward impulse, the not-entropic impulse, supplied by the principles of nation-state and investment in fostering and employing scientific progress. On the opposing side, there is the anti-nation-state, anti-science, and pro-usury, entropic impulse, supplied by that international oligarchy which was formerly centered in Venice.

As the influence of the latter has increased, at the expense of the political power of the former, the entropic impulse within the society tends to predominate, increasing the power of the oligarchic faction by weakening the power of its opponent.

So1, the interaction of the opposing axioms of the two conflicting tendencies defines the cycle.

This cycle is now emerging in its end-phase as a prospective, imminent disintegration of that British “Venetian Party” dynasty which has reigned nearly five centuries, from the sex-crazed Henry VIII to the imminent fall of the House of Windsor.

Oligarchism
Until the emergence of modern Europe during the 15th century Golden Renaissance, for as far back into history and pre-history as our knowledge reaches, more than 90% of the households of each and all peoples subsisted upon a more or less brutish form of rural labor.

As the case of the Delphi cult’s oligarchical Sparta illustrates the point, the prevailing state of actual or virtual serfdom paralleled, and all too often coincided with the evil of outright chattel slavery. Those forms of society, often described as the “Asian model,” are the paradigm for what we have identified here as oligarchism.

Consider one typical case of an oligarchical form of society: a state premised upon a configuration of four castes, estates, or classes. In this type, the households in a serf-like condition are at the bottom. At the top is a collection of ruling families, to such effect that the collective power of this oligarchy to govern the state lies in the relatively less mortal, corporate form of the family institution, rather than the highly mortal individual member of that household.7

Proximate to the oligarchy as such is a priest-caste, such as the early chaldean pagan priest-caste and its “magician” successors, or the priesthood of the Delphi cult of Gaia-Apollo-Python/Dionysius.

Below both of these, but above the serf-caste and slaves, the plebeians: craftsmen, merchants, and so on.

The most influential relatively recent codification of an oligarchical form of society is found in the notorious “socialist” Code of the pagan Roman emperor Diocletian, the model for the modern “eugenicists” and other radical “environmentalists.”

In contrast to modern platonic culture and christianity, oligarchism, such as that of the Darwins, Huxleys, and Harvard University’s B.F. Skinner and Herrnstein, allows no strict distinction between mankind and the beasts. The general tendency, often enough a codified practice of rigid oligarchical societies, is to treat the separation of the upper from lower classes as a distinction between an inferior and superior animal species.

The oligarchical division among ruling and inferior castes is defended, often explicitly, by the apology that these distinctions are the product of natural, biological, genetic distinctions.8

That is the so-called “Asiatic model” of oligarchism which was transmitted from Ishtar’s Mesopotamia and Moloch’s Tyre into the European forms of oligarchism echoed by the House of Windsor today.

Plato and the Christian revolution
In known history, the first clear attempt to break with this oligarchical system, is seen in the maritime power of those Ionian city-state republics which certain forces in Egypt sponsored against the canaanite maritime power of Tyre, and against the spread of the babylonian model of empire generally.

With Solon’s reforms at Athens, the contrast between Solon‘s laws and Lycurgus‘s law for Sparta serves to the present-day as the best choice of benchmark of reference for the difference in principle between political good and political evil in European history to date.9

7. The Roman pagan law’s notion of paterfamilias is exemplary of the nature of this distinction. The Venetian family’s fondo is an echo of the Roman law of paterfamilias; it is the trustees of the fondo, not the biological members of the nominal family, which exert the authority of paterfamilias.

8. The oligarchs, like the British aristocrats or U.S. self-styled “patricians,” often apply the rales of thumb borrowed from breeding of cattle and dogs to the mating practices of their own progeny. Considering the decadence shown by today’s litters of heirs from such aristocratic and wealthy families, one must say fairly that the intellectual qualities ostensibly produced by such breeding-practices are scarcely awe-inspiring.

The chief precursor of modern science and also the modern alternative to the oligarchical model of society, is the writings and influence of Plato and his Academy at Athens.

The pre-foundations of the modern european nation-state are found in the Apostle Paul’s mission to the gentiles.

Although christianity was within the context defined by Moses worship, the Pauline mission broke from the ethnic bounds of Roman-captivity Judaism to practice Jesus-christ’s message, that all persons are in the image of God, and thus each and all set above all beasts, by virtue of that capacity for generating and receiving those qualities of valid axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries of principle which are typified by great Classical forms of works of art and by physical scientific discovery in the tradition of Plato, Nicolaus of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, and Leibniz today.

The same principle was reemphasized with great clarity by the Christian platonist Augustine, who is the central figure of the organization of a western european Christianity freed of the gnostic corruptions rampant in the eastern empire.

Although that principle was always embedded in Christian faith, it was not efficiently incorporated in the doctrine of statecraft until the work of Cusa and other key figures of the 1439-40 Council of Ferrara/Florence. Until that Renaissance, western European society was governed by an imperial, oligarchical notion of law.

Earlier christian efforts to change that were assaulted with infuriated great force by the feudal oligarchies which saw attempts to elevate the mental and political condition of the lower castes as a threat to the oligarchical order. Nowhere on this planet, until that Renaissance, did a nation-state exist, or was a society dedicated to the general promotion of increase of the productive powers of labor through a scientific culture.

The case of the young revolutionary United States of America is a crucial demonstration of the introduction of that Christian principle to the ordering of society’ s secular affairs.

The Federal U.S.A. of the 1790 Census shows that, even that recently, over 90% of the population subsisted from rural occupations. However, at that time, the literacy, the productivity, and the standard of living of the Americans were each already more than twice the level existing in the United Kingdom.

That American “Latin farmer,” is typified by his literacy in the political tracts of such writers as Tom Paine and Alexander Hamilton; those are texts beyond the capacity of the relatively less literate, typical present-day U.S. high-school graduate, even many university graduates. The potential basis, in morals and literacy, for a great upward transformation in the conditions of family and national life were already visible during the late 18th century.

The benefits are traceable in the changing composition of employment and real incomes of the U.S. workforce over the span from 1790 into the mid-1960s, until the pestilence known as the “New Age cultural-paradigm shift” was unleashed upon our society.

This U.S. example illustrates the unprecedented achievements of the Golden Renaissance’s establishment of the new norms of nation-state and scientific and artistic development for all of the population. We see the breaking-down of the oligarchical class-barriers which had kept mankind morally beneath its birthright for so long.

Plato‘s contribution to the principles of human knowledge was indispensable for making this possible.

In the exemplary case of his famous Parmenides dialogue, he presents a pedagogy for demonstrating a fully intelligible principle of human creativity lying outside and absolutely above the level of mere deductive arguments such as those of Parmenides, the sophists, and Aristotle.

This principle, which appears in Classical forms of poetry, drama, music, and painting as the principle of true metaphor, enables us to define the act of creativity as a mental object, an object not dependent upon the mere senses, an object rendering intelligible to us those forms of mental activity through which we are able willfully to generate, and to assimilate valid axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries of principle respecting universal lawfulness of the universe.

This mental object, so defined, is the object to which we must refer when we describe the individual person as,

“in the image of God,” or, the same thing, “possessed from birth with ‘a divine spark of reason’.”

It is this power to receive and impart conceptions which are valid, axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries of natural principles which has enabled mankind to increase willfully the productive powers of labor, per capita, per household, and per square kilometer, in such a way as to increase the potential population-density of the human species by more than three decimal orders of magnitude above the level possible for “primitive hunting-and-gathering” modes.

In this and other expressions, this creative-mental practice of the individual is the source of the “not-entropy” of all relatively successful modes of society, as distinct from those cultures which are inherently doomed, dead-ends.

The demonstrated superiority of the culture flowing from the Golden Renaissance over any other culture which ever existed, expresses the power unleashed by forms of statecraft and scientific and cultural progress consistent with the understanding that human creativity is a fully intelligible conception, the only empirical basis for the notion of the person as in the living image of God the Creator,

In principle, we may look into the eyes of any child, of any parentage, and see that mental object existing behind those eyes, so to speak. That is seeing one’s fellow-human as “in the image of God.” Once we have seen that, we could tolerate no longer a policy which degrades any household into a state of beastly slavery or serfdom.

It must be our passion, that these children shall be developed in their minds to receive and impart valid conceptions of creative-mental discovery in art, in science, and in technology of productive practice. It must be our passion, that society must be organized to such effect that this right to live as a truly human being ought, is a universal right, around which society as a whole must be organized.

As Augustine shows, it is the method of Plato informed by Christianity, which is the basis for public morality: political, economic, and otherwise. The Christian is freed from the piggishness of racialism and class prejudice, freed from self-degradation to the likeness of a mere beast.

Whoever has glimpsed the evil of early history, should recognize as hateful and mass-murderous, anything like Prince Philip’s proposal: to return the world to a state of affairs in which any other view of man but as in the image of God’s creative nature were to prevail as the law among nations.

The interactionFor more than five centuries, the oligarchy has hated the Golden Renaissance as the gods of Zeus’s pagan Olympus hated playwright Aeschylus’ Prometheus.

Bringing “fire,” the knowledge that the individual person’s gift of creative reason casts him in the living image of God, menaces the power of those olympian tyrants who would be considered immortal gods by foolish men and women. To bring the utmost rage to the features of a true oligarch, threaten to educate the cognitive potentials of his serf.

In the old oligarchical model, the peasant is regarded as just an animal. The oligarch puts the peasant in a field, in a stall, just as he keeps “other cattle.” The peasant-animal grows food, just as a cow produces meat and milk. So many cows (or peasants), so much food, as long as the pastures are not overcrowded!10

Just so, wild game is raised in forest preserves of the princes and dukes: The prince’s park rangers kill off the extra venison when the game-herd becomes too numerous. So, Prince Philip uses precisely that image to describe the methods he employs to manage the size of the human population, worldwide.11

To understand this issue of oligarchism adequately, one should compare experience within western Europe and the Americas with the problems which development faces from within the cultures of Asia.

10. What we have identified here are the philosophical assumptions underlying the anti-Colbert Physiocratic dogma of figures such as that asset of Abbot Antonio Conti’s salon, Dr. Francois Quesnay. Except as Adam Smith extended Quesnay’s dogma respecting agricultural labor to manufacturing labor, all of Smith’s notions of morality and political-economy were either copies of the views set forth by Quesnay by 1758, or copies of the influence of those members of Conti’s salon from which Quesnay derived his. With those modest qualifications, Smith was a Physiocrat, and a complete oligarchist. Quesnay’s views were informed by missionaries’ reports on the principles of China’s oligarchical model. In both Quesnay and Smith, and with all Venetians of the 15th through early 19th centuries, human creativity was flatly denied to exist at all, and excluded from consideration in respect to efficient factors of social change. Venice’ s oligarchical philosophy was, and remains, the bestialization of mankind.

11. In an Oct. 27,1991 appearance on French national television, Prince Philip walked the interviewer through the paces on the way in which the prince’s crowd arranged the mass-killing of excess populations of wild animals inhabiting the “protected” areas of the Africa wild-game preserves. Then, in response to the interviewer’s obvious question, the prince replied: “This is the same principle for man; only, for us, our protected area is the entire Earth. The principle is really the same.”

At the same time that the European oligarchy represented by the House of Windsor does everything its tyrannical arrogance dares to venture, aided by theInternational Monetary Fund and World Bank, in virtually crushing out of existence any possibility of scientific and technological progress in developing of the so-called Third World, there is also a powerful internal resistance against progress from within the populations of the developing sector, as in Asia.

The success of oligarchies from within these developing nations in preventing the improvement of the quality of life of their poorer strata, depends to a large degree on strong resistance to change from within the ranks of those same poorer strata. Indeed, in all human history, few tyrannies could have persisted for as long as they did, but for such culturally determined complicity among the victims.

So, in the fight against chattel slavery within the pre-Civil War U. S. A., the African-American civil rights leaders adopted the expression, that literacy matching European Classical standards is the essential difference between the free man and the slave.

The mechanism by which the serf is motivated to defend the forms of enslavement he suffers, is more readily understood by examining similar forms of self-degradation commonplace among U.S. left-wingers, such as anarcho-syndicalists or other culturally illiterate populists. The oligarchical intelligentsia is aware of this mechanism and relies upon it as the chief means by which the victims of oligarchism are induced to assist in putting on one another’s chains each night.

To gain insight into the psychological origins of oligarchism, and to understand the tricks on which the modern oligarchy has most relied to control the serfs, one must muster insight into the self-degradation of the mind of the populists or analogous cases among the victims.

There is a profound principle involved here, but the point is of crucial relevance.

Insofar as the individual person’s world-outlook is more or less limited to emphasis upon an associative form of interaction between his or her emotions and sense-objects, that person tends to share the misanthropic misconception of “human nature” one meets in Zorzi, Sarpi, Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, et al.

For those unfortunates, the reality of one’s own existence is imagined to begin with earliest recollections of sense-experiences, and to end when the senses go silent. Anything beyond that he attributes to an Orphic after-life in Hades. A poor wretch like that, if he is of an academic bent, readily accepts those disgusting 1759 utterances which Smith later resurrected for his 1776, Physiocratic dogma of the so-called “Invisible Hand”:

Nature has directed us… by original and immediate instincts.

Hunger, thirst, the passion which unites the two sexes, the love of pleasure, and the dread of pain, prompt us to apply those means for their own sakes, and without any consideration of their tendency to those beneficent ends which the great Director of Nature intended to produce by them.12

12. Adam Smith, The Theory of the Moral Sentiments, (1759).

Matters are entirely different with any person who is aware of the efficient use of his own and others’ creative-mental powers.

In mathematics, for example, our scientific knowledge of that subject-matter begins by our replicating the discoveries of such as Pythagoras and Plato, reliving in one’s own mind, as student, their mental experience of discoveries from thousands of years ago. It is the same with every other discovery mastered in a similar way.

The student whose mental powers are developed in that way, is keenly aware that the practical benefits of modern mathematics incorporate, as presently efficient principles of work, ideas generated by individuals now deceased many centuries, or even millennia. Such a student recognizes that the distinction which sets mankind above the beasts is the discovery and perpetuation of those valid ideas which are the accumulated sum-total of human knowledge to date, all acquired and transmitted through the agency of this mental-creative faculty.

Such a student has access to a realization that one’s own, brief mortal existence is an opportunity for a participation in all of human existence, taking from the distant past and giving to the far distant future.

This is the ground on which that student finds his vast moral superiority over the populist “practical man” who knows only the fruit of his sense-experience and blind passions.

When the oligarchs reduce a large portion of humanity to the status of talking cattle, as they did to slaves and serfs, they not merely suppress the human potentials of the victims. They also dehumanize them by transforming them into “regular guys” of the reduced status to which they are relegated.

The fate of peoples, nations, and the outcome of a personal mortal life is determined by processes which span, ultimately, the entirety of human existence, past and future. From the past, we inherit the accumulation of ideas developed by others before, and the condition of man-improved (or worsened) conditions of life. The outcome of our having lived as a person lies with our posterity.

The crux of the matter, on both accounts, is our self-governance by selection of those ideas which guide us to act upon the course of history, as we encounter all humanity, all history, while it passes through our mortal time.

The individual who lives with that awareness of ideas, and his or her relationship to such a realm of ideas, is the truly adult human being. The victim of oligarchical thinking is relatively infantile, or worse, morally as well as intellectually.

The person who is morally degraded from a person of ideas, to a mere “practical man” of “my personal experience,” flees from his or her contributing responsibility for the outcome of human history, for the general welfare of our posterity.13

13. On this, contrast the Preamble of the U.S. Federal Constitution to oligarchical parody found in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. The U.S. Constitution’s intent is thus shown, by the “general welfare clause,” to be the adoption of Gottfried Leibniz’s principle of natural law, and a rejection of the immorality of Locke’s oligarchical “social contract” dogma, which Locke embedded in the colonial law of the Carolinas. The Confederacy, like Locke, was an expression of oligarchy in the evil tradition of Lycurgan Sparta, in contrast to the tradition of Solon and George Washington represented by President Lincoln.

He or she flees into the virtual reality worshipped by the fan of “soap opera.”

For him or her, everything is a matter of an empiricist’ s pairwise interactions among persons in the “here and now.” The empiricist’s preoccupation with his or her personal affairs, so defined, rules him. He is too busy with such pairwise interactions in his pitiably tiny here and now to assume moral accountability for the outcome of his generation’s having lived.

He flees from the big issues into the microscopic realm of what he calls “my affairs,” and “my personal morality.” He can tolerate any great crime against humanity with self-assured moral self-satisfaction, as long as he is not caught in such personal offenses in the very small as stealing or adultery.

The most commonplace evil practiced by small people is smug confidence in the moral-indifferentist practice of such small-mindedness. It is upon this consenting wickedness in the smugly self-righteous oppressed that oligarchical rule finds the democratic consent to the most monstrous tyrannies. So, until now, have oligarchs fooled most of the people most of the time, and some of the people all of the time.

So, victims of serfdom or the like may be induced to commit treason against their own humanity.

The mechanism of the cycleThe clearest model of the way in which dynastic cycles function is the cycle now closing. Never before has the not-entropic impulse for increase of potential population-density even approached the vigorous growth accomplished through the Renaissance-launched institutions of nation-state and scientific progress.

On the opposing side, whenever technological stagnation is imposed upon society for an extended period, the result must be an entropic collapse in the potential population-density. It is the interaction among the two contrary impulses, the not-entropic and entropic, which is the cause of dynastic cycles such as this one.

From approximately 1510 until the mass-recruitment to the oligarchical “cultural-paradigm shift” which surfaced during the 1964-68 interval, european civilization was fairly characterized as of a dual character. The successes of that civilization, as it spread throughout the world, were derived from the not-entropic impact of the combined principles of the nation-state and scientific progress.

At the same time, the civilization was being fatally corrupted, top-down, by the entropic, oligarchical element which came to be centered in the “Venetian Party’s” British monarchy.

Then, coinciding with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the oligarchy on top elected to begin the final phase of total destruction of the not-entropic institutions of nation-state and scientific progress. Under the impact of that latter, most recent phase of this long cycle, the global system as a whole has been brought to the verge of self-disintegration.

If we could resuscitate the heritage of the Renaissance, freed of the discarded encumbrance of the Venice-fostered Enlightenment, the result would be a unimodal, not-entropic form of cycle-free economic and related recovery.

The leading institutional problem is replacing the incurably bankrupt present global monetary and financial system.

The measures of physical-economic recovery required are either well-known or readily identified. The use of state credit to finance both governmental and private concerns in the development of urgently needed programs of repair and expansion of basic economic infrastructure, in the public sector, will provide, as it has done numerous times before, the stimulant for rapid growth of the entrepreneurial private sector in agriculture and industry.

The crux of the matter is to replace the existing monetary and financial systems, based on privately controlled central banking systems, by the kind of system of national banking which tradition associates with the name of U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton.

The implied life-death struggle between private central banking systems and national banking, becomes now the key to whether civilization as a whole recovers from this crisis, or descends into the most menacing “New Dark Age” in history.

The oligarchy has brought about its own destruction.

The successful indoctrination of its own ranks in the cultural paradigm causing this present collapse, has produced, as the present generations of that oligarchy, a stratum bereft of the capacity to recognize its own folly, incapable of defining alternatives to the doom now threatening us all. For some portions of that oligarchy, it is nonetheless clear, that as long as the utter depravity represented by Prince Philip is allowed to continue to dominate the oligarchy as a whole, the imminent doom of civilization is assured.

So, the coming fall of the House of Windsoris inevitable, in one way or another.

For the rest of us, the task is simply to throw out the dirty, oligarchical bathwater, without losing the baby in the process. The point of the exercise is to know which is which.

The point, therefore, is not to permit oneself to be degraded into smallness of mind.

Implant Removal Series

Read The Testimonials

Excerpts may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Alexandra Meadors and www.galacticconnection.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of any material on this website without express and written permission from its author and owner is strictly prohibited. Thank you.

Privacy Policy

By subscribing to GalacticConnection.com you acknowledge that your name and e-mail address will be added to our database. As with all other personal information, only working affiliates of GalacticConnection.com have access to this data. We do not give GalacticConnection.com addresses to outside companies, nor will we ever rent or sell your email address. Any e-mail you send to GalacticConnection.com is completely confidential. Therefore, we will not add your name to our e-mail list without your permission. Continue reading...